Skip to main content
Glama
gregordadera

aicb-roslyn-mcp

by gregordadera
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

Refresh a Session

refresh_session
Idempotent

Re-analyze the session's solution after editing .cs files so usages, impact, and context queries use the current code graph instead of stale pre-edit results.

Instructions

Re-analyze the session's solution after YOUR code edits - call it once you have changed .cs files, otherwise find_usages / impact_of_change / list_insights / get_context may keep answering from the STALE pre-edit graph (a silent source of wrong results). Cheap to call speculatively: a W0 file-set-hash check skips the expensive Roslyn re-run when nothing actually changed, and a C# file whose timestamp moved while its text stayed the snapshot's (a save without an edit) does not count as a change either. That check reads SOURCE files, so it cannot see a restore or build - after one of those, an analysis that reported unresolved references retries once by itself, and 'force' is the deterministic way to demand it. Reuses the warm workspace. Returns { changed, reason, session, mode } - 'mode' names the path the re-analysis took ('incremental' = document texts replayed into the warm snapshot without an MSBuild reload, else 'full-reload') and is absent when nothing was re-analyzed. The incremental path can stop engaging without any visible symptom - answers stay correct, calls just get slow again - so 'mode' is how you notice.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
forceNoRe-analyze even when no source file has changed. Use it after a restore/build that was meant to repair unresolved references - those live in build output the file-set hash does not cover, so an ordinary call can legitimately answer 'unchanged'. Costs a full MSBuild reload; leave false for the normal after-an-edit refresh.
sessionIdYesThe session_id returned by analyze_solution. Also takes an absolute .sln/.slnx/.slnf path, analyzed on first use.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.5.46513
    • changedInput schema / properties / sessionId / description
      Previous value: -"The session_id returned by analyze_solution."New value: +"The session_id returned by analyze_solution. Also takes an absolute .sln/.slnx/.slnf path, analyzed on first use."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false), but the description goes far beyond: it discloses the cheap W0 hash pre-check, the source-file-only blind spot (misses restore/build), the automatic single retry, and the reuse of a warm workspace. These are non-obvious behavioral traits the annotations cannot convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core action and the stale-graph warning, then caching, then return shape - a logical order with no filler sentences. It is dense and long, packing several distinct concerns into one paragraph, which costs a little scannability but every clause carries actionable information.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description fully documents the return object ({changed, reason, session, mode}) and the meaning of 'mode' and its absence. Combined with annotations, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning to 'force' (deterministic demand for re-analysis after a restore/build, full MSBuild cost) and reinforces sessionId semantics. It exceeds the schema rather than merely restating 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Re-analyze the session's solution after YOUR code edits') with the triggering condition (changed .cs files). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the read-only analysis siblings that would otherwise answer from a stale graph, so an agent can pick it without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit when (after editing .cs files), when-not (a save without an edit, an unchanged file-set hash), and the exact alternatives that go stale (find_usages / impact_of_change / list_insights / get_context). It also names the escalation path 'force' for restore/build scenarios, leaving nothing to inference.

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