Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
GitPilot MCP

GitPilot MCP

by Divyanshu-hash
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

reindex_repository

Rebuild the repository index by deleting the old index and creating a fresh one after code changes.

Instructions

Re-index a repository (useful after code changes).

This will delete the old index and create a fresh one.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "repo_path": "<repo_path>"
    },
    "name": "reindex_repository"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repo_pathYesAbsolute path to the repository

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations exist, so description carries the burden. It explicitly states the destructive behavior: 'delete the old index and create a fresh one', which is valuable. However, it omits details like required permissions or potential runtime.

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?

Two concise sentences, no waste. Front-loaded with the action and purpose, followed by a critical behavioral note.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description adequately explains the core action and side effect. Minor omissions (e.g., impact on indexing state) but still reasonably complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains the only parameter (repo_path). The description adds no extra meaning beyond this, meeting baseline expectations.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states 'Re-index a repository' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like 'index_repo' (initial indexing) by noting it's useful after code changes.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It provides context ('useful after code changes') but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or direct comparison to alternatives such as 'index_repo' for first-time indexing.

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