Check the semantic index metadata, location, and build state for local multilingual file search, including counts, timestamps, model, and running or failed builds.
Semantic index metadata (count, built_at, model), its location, and any running or failed build.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does hint that the call can report 'any running or failed build', which is a useful behavioral detail, but it never states that this is a non-mutating read, whether invoking it has side effects, or what it costs on a large index.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
It is compact with no wasted words, but it is a bare fragment rather than a complete sentence and is not front-loaded with a verb, which makes it read like a field list rather than a tool definition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description does the right thing by naming the returned fields (count, built_at, model, location, build status), which is genuinely useful. However it omits all usage context and any statement of read-vs-write behavior for a tool with no annotations to fall back on, so it is only minimally complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. Schema description coverage is 100%.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description enumerates what the tool surfaces (index count, built_at, model, location, build state), which identifies the resource, but it is a noun-phrase fragment with no verb — an agent must infer 'get/read status' rather than being told. It is distinguishable from everything_semantic_search and everything_semantic_reindex only by implication, not by explicit contrast.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says whether to call this before a reindex, to diagnose a failed build, or how it relates to the sibling everything_health. The agent is left to infer the trigger condition from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.