Restarts a stalled language server to restore responsiveness after unresponsive states or major project changes, with an optional new workspace root.
Restart the LSP server process. Use this if the LSP server becomes unresponsive or after making significant changes to the project structure. Optionally provide a new root_dir to restart with a different workspace root.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| root_dir | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.16.0v0.15.0v0.11.1v0.10.0v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Covers action and optional parameter but lacks disclosure of side effects (e.g., loss of state, need to reinitialize).
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action, no wasted words.
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?
Sufficient for a simple tool; covers purpose, use cases, and parameter. Could mention post-restart behavior but not necessary.
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 has no description for root_dir; description explains it changes workspace root, adding necessary meaning beyond the schema.
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?
Clearly states 'Restart the LSP server process' with specific use cases (unresponsive, after project changes), distinguishing from sibling tools like start_lsp.
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?
Provides explicit when-to-use scenarios (unresponsive server, significant changes) but does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare with alternatives like start_lsp.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.