rebuild-dossier

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Ingest repo

ingest_repo

Idempotent

Reverse-engineer an existing app into a rebuild spec by statically analyzing package.json, configs, routes, and tests. Point it at a repo path to extract the structure needed for a clean rebuild.

Instructions

Parse package.json, tailwind/vite config, route files, and existing tests via static analysis. No LLM call.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes	Absolute path to the repo to ingest
`interactive`	No	When true and 0 routes are found at a monorepo-shaped path, ask via elicitation which candidate directory is the real app, then ingest that instead

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`routes`	Yes
`savedTo`	Yes
`signals`	Yes
`openCases`	Yes
`buildConfig`	Yes
`monorepoHint`	No
`existingTests`	Yes
`unsupportedStackNote`	No
`resolvedMonorepoChoice`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.16-paperSep 25, 2026
- addedOutput schema / properties / unsupportedStackNote
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.6-paperAug 29, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "buildConfig": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "existingTests": {
+      "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+      "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "monorepoHint": {
+      "additionalProperties": false,
+      "properties": {
+        "candidates": {
+          "items": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "type": "array"
+        },
+        "message": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "message",
+        "candidates"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "openCases": {
+      "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+      "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "resolvedMonorepoChoice": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "routes": {
+      "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+      "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "savedTo": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "signals": {
+      "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+      "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+      "type": "integer"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "routes",
+    "existingTests",
+    "signals",
+    "buildConfig",
+    "openCases",
+    "savedTo"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.2.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it operates via static analysis and makes no LLM call. This goes beyond the structured metadata, though it does not describe side effects of ingestion.

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 short sentences with no filler; the concrete file list is front-loaded and the differentiating 'No LLM call' follows immediately. Every word earns its place.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a tool with a full output schema, 100% parameter coverage, and annotations covering idempotence and destructiveness, the description supplies the missing behavioral context (static analysis, no LLM call). Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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%, and the schema already explains path and the interactive fallback behavior. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific action ('Parse') and concrete resources (package.json, tailwind/vite config, route files, existing tests), and adds 'via static analysis' plus 'No LLM call' to distinguish it from sibling tools like generate_spec or resolve_case. This is a clear, differentiated purpose.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit guidance on when to choose ingest_repo over its siblings or when not to use it. 'No LLM call' hints at a niche, but the description never states a workflow, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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

Deploy Server