Pretty much, yes. A histogram that looks like that can represent a proper exposure or an exposure that's off a bit, but it can't arise as the result of a gross mistake.

If, for instance, you had something that was as absolutely black as it's possible for something to be in nature, and you had metered so wrongly that the black value was sitting in the middle of the histogram, then you'd expect anything in the picture that wasn't black to fall off the right side of the chart. The same sort of thing would happen if you exposed for a light source, but in the opposite direction.

It is common (and usually desirable) for studio shots to lie completely (or almost completely) within the camera's dynamic range, with perhaps just a handful of pixels representing a true black or white. (That assumes, of course, that you haven't tried to create a digitally white or black background by overexposing the background or using something like black velvet.) And Ansel Adams would have considered it a great personal failure if anything important in his images fell below Zone III (two stops below mid grey) or above Zone VIII (three stops above).

By a lot of standards, a histogram that looks like the one you've described is an ideal exposure of an ideal scene. The only reason to worry about it is if the image appears too flat. If it's an image you're creating in studio (or at least one you're lighting yourself), you can make lighting adjustments to make the contrast more appealing. If it's a natural-light shot, you can always increase the contrast in post. When the histogram hugs the edges, you're kind of stuck with manipulating small parts of the contrast curve, and if it actually hits the edges hard, you're kind of stuck with what you've got.