Skip to main content
Glama

update_symbol_index

Idempotent

Re-index D365FO XML files changed outside this server, such as via Visual Studio, manual edits, or git pull, to keep symbol data current. Call without arguments to refresh bridge/cache only.

Instructions

Index D365FO XML changed OUTSIDE this server (VS, hand edit, git pull). Do NOT call after d365fo_file create/modify — they re-index already. No args = bridge/cache refresh only.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "update_symbol_index"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modelNoCustom model: re-index all its changed, new and deleted files.
filePathNoAbsolute XML path, or an ARRAY — batch them (one bridge refresh per call).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.22.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / filePath / description
      Previous value: -"Absolute path to the changed XML file, or an ARRAY — batch them, each call costs a bridge refresh."New value: +"Absolute XML path, or an ARRAY — batch them (one bridge refresh per call)."
    • addedInput schema / properties / model
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Custom model: re-index all its changed, new and deleted files.",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.9.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / filePath / description
      Previous value: -"Absolute path to the modified or created XML file (e.g. K:\\\\AosService\\\\PackagesLocalDirectory\\\\MyModel\\\\MyModel\\\\AxClass\\\\MyClass.xml), or an ARRAY — batch them, each call costs a bridge refresh."New value: +"Absolute path to the changed XML file, or an ARRAY — batch them, each call costs a bridge refresh."
  3. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.8.5
    • changedInput schema / properties / filePath / description
      Previous value: -"Absolute path to the modified or created XML file (e.g. K:\\\\AosService\\\\PackagesLocalDirectory\\\\MyModel\\\\MyModel\\\\AxClass\\\\MyClass.xml). Omit to run a lightweight bridge/workspace refresh instead of indexing a specific file."New value: +"Absolute path to the modified or created XML file (e.g. K:\\\\AosService\\\\PackagesLocalDirectory\\\\MyModel\\\\MyModel\\\\AxClass\\\\MyClass.xml), or an ARRAY — batch them, each call costs a bridge refresh."
    • addedInput schema / properties / filePath / items
      Added value: +{
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • changedInput schema / properties / filePath / type
      Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
      +  "string",
      +  "array"
      +]
  4. First observedv1.8.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the no-arg invocation degrades to a bridge/cache refresh only, and batching keeps one bridge refresh per call. It doesn't discuss failure modes or what the agent gets back, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences: purpose first, then the exclusion, then the zero-arg behavior. Every clause carries operational meaning and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 two-parameter, non-destructive maintenance tool with rich annotations, the description covers triggering conditions, exclusions, and the empty-call case. Absent an output schema, it could say what a successful run reports back (files re-indexed, counts), but that is the only real gap.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including model re-indexing scope and array batching. The description adds the one thing the schema cannot express: what it means to supply zero arguments (cache/bridge refresh only), which materially changes how an agent should call it.

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 verb (index) and resource (D365FO XML changed OUTSIDE this server) and explicitly scopes the source of change to VS/hand edit/git pull. It also contrasts itself with the sibling d365fo_file create/modify path, so an agent can distinguish the two without inspecting schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives an explicit when-to-use ('changed OUTSIDE this server'), an explicit when-NOT ('Do NOT call after d365fo_file create/modify'), and the alternative that handles that case. The no-argument refresh case is also defined, leaving little to inference.

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