Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
folder-index

folder-index

by git-raka
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

refresh_index

Start a background incremental re-index of all folders, reading only new or changed files and OCRing scanned PDFs and images afterward.

Instructions

Start an incremental re-index of every folder in the background (only new/changed files are read). Scanned PDFs and images found along the way are OCR'd afterwards.

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": "refresh_index"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose real behavior: work happens in the background, only new/changed files are read (incremental, cost-saving), and OCR of scanned PDFs/images runs afterwards. It leaves out idempotency/concurrency safety and how progress is tracked, but the core behavioral shape is unusually well disclosed for a zero-param tool.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the most decision-relevant facts (background execution, incremental scope) are front-loaded.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a background state-changing operation with no annotations, the description should say how to observe completion (e.g., point to index_status) and whether repeated calls are safe. That operational gap keeps it at minimum-viable complete.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The sentence 'only new/changed files are read' usefully clarifies the implicit default scope of an unparameterized call.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb+resource ('Start an incremental re-index of every folder') with scope and mode ('in the background'). It implicitly separates itself from read-only siblings like search_files and find_files, but never names index_status or any sibling explicitly.

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?

Implied usage only: 'Start' and 'in the background' signal it is the async entry point for re-indexing, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer it, when not to call it, or which sibling to use for checking progress or for one-off file lookups.

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