Skip to main content
Glama
wlee374

sumgrep

by wlee374
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

index_status

Report how many functions are indexed per repository, at which commit, and when, so you can tell whether code search reflects your current checkout.

Instructions

What is indexed: for each repo (or only repo="name"), how many functions, at which commit, and when.

The index is a snapshot at that commit. Compare it with `git log` in
your checkout: code changed after it may have moved, and code added
after it is not in the index — grep for it. Re-indexing is a manual
CLI step, not a tool.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the key behavioral trait: the data is a point-in-time snapshot tied to a commit, with freshness limits for post-commit code. It does not cover permissions or any pagination/volume behavior for repos with many entries.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Short and front-loaded: what is returned comes first, then the staleness caveat, then the re-indexing exclusion. Every sentence contributes; nothing is filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, the description needn't describe return shape, and it covers staleness and the manual re-index path well. The remaining gap is what a `repo` identifier looks like, which matters for the one parameter it has.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single optional parameter is explained semantically: omitting it returns all repos, passing it narrows to one. This adds real meaning beyond the bare `repo: string|null` schema, which has 0% description coverage. It doesn't state whether the value is a display name, path, or ID, which is a missed detail.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a concrete content statement: for each repo it reports function counts, the commit, and the timestamp. That is distinct from the sibling search_code (status vs. query), though the verb is implicit ("What is indexed") rather than an explicit action.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It establishes the operating context: the index is a snapshot, code changed after the commit may have moved, and code added later must be grepped instead. It also rules out a tempting alternative by stating re-indexing is a manual CLI step, not a tool. It stops short of explicitly telling the agent to call this before search_code.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools