Rebuild the index from markdown files to resync the slipbox when notes were edited externally or the database is out of sync with the filesystem.
Rebuild the database index from markdown files.
Use this if notes were edited outside the MCP server or if the database seems out of sync with the filesystem.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.4Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "result": {
+ "title": "Result",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "result"
+ ],
+ "title": "slipbox_rebuild_indexOutput",
+ "type": "object"
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does (rebuild index) but does not reveal any side effects, such as whether it overwrites the existing index, if it destroys data, if it requires exclusive access, or if it is safe to run concurrently. For a maintenance operation that modifies state, this is a significant gap.
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?
The description is two sentences with zero wasted words. The action is front-loaded, and the usage context is delivered in the second sentence. It is appropriately concise for a zero-parameter maintenance tool.
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?
For a simple tool with no parameters and an output schema present, the description provides the essential trigger conditions. However, it omits behavioral details like whether the operation is destructive, if it locks the database, or if it can be run while other operations are in progress. Given no annotations, the description should disclose more about the operation's impact, so a 3 is appropriate.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so according to the scoring rule the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is needed; the schema already confirms an empty parameter set. The description's clarity about the action suffices.
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?
The description states a specific verb ('rebuild'), resource ('database index'), and source ('from markdown files'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle notes, links, clusters, or searches. There is no other rebuild-oriented sibling, so the purpose is unambiguous.
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?
The description explicitly states when to use the tool: when notes were edited outside the MCP server or the database seems out of sync with the filesystem. It provides clear context for invocation but does not mention alternatives or exclusions, which is acceptable since this is a unique maintenance operation with no direct sibling alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.