Queue a website of a collection for re-indexing now. Unchanged pages are skipped.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source_id | Yes | ID of the website source (from collections.list_websites) | |
| in_workspace | No | Run this one call in this workspace id instead of the session's. Nothing is stored; other sessions are not affected. | |
| collection_id | Yes | ID of the knowledge collection |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / in_workspaceAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Run this one call in this workspace id instead of the session's. Nothing is stored; other sessions are not affected.",
+ "type": "integer"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: 'Queue ... now' signals an asynchronous enqueue rather than a synchronous re-index, and 'unchanged pages are skipped' tells the agent work may be partially skipped. It still omits auth requirements and how completion is observed.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource and followed by the one behavioral caveat. No filler; every clause earns its place.
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?
For a 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and adequate annotations, the description covers purpose and the key skip behavior. It does not say that the call returns immediately after queueing or how the agent learns when re-indexing finishes, which is a meaningful gap for a queued operation.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters documented in the schema itself (including the source_id pointer to collections.list_websites). The description adds no parameter detail, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: queue a collection's website for re-indexing. 'Re-indexing' implies the website source already exists, which implicitly separates it from collections_add_website, but no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is given. The agent must infer from 're-indexing' that a website must already have been added via collections_add_website before this call makes sense; no prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.