obsidian-local-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Reindex Paths

reindex_paths

Incrementally reindexes selected repository paths after edits, keeping the dependency graph aligned with code and preventing drift.

Instructions

Incremental reindex of just these relpaths within a repo -- call this after editing files so the graph does not drift from the code.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "repo": "<repo>",
      "paths": "<paths>"
    },
    "name": "reindex_paths"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`repo`	Yes
`paths`	Yes
`vault`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 11, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the operation is incremental and only touches the given paths, but says nothing about idempotency, how stale/removed paths are handled, auth requirements, or whether it is synchronous. Partial disclosure against a high bar.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and scope, then appends the usage trigger. No wasted words, though the '--' clause makes it slightly dense.

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. However, for a 3-parameter mutation with zero annotation coverage, the description leaves the vault parameter and the effect on deleted or renamed paths unaddressed, so it is adequate but incomplete.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'paths' are repo-relative ('relpaths') and that 'repo' scopes the operation, but the third parameter 'vault' is never mentioned, and no format or syntax details are provided for any parameter.

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 (reindex), a scoped resource (just these relpaths), and the modifier 'incremental' that distinguishes it from a full index_repo. An agent can tell it is a partial, path-targeted operation without opening the schema, though it never explicitly names the sibling it contrasts with.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives a clear trigger condition: 'call this after editing files so the graph does not drift from the code.' That is strong when-to-use guidance. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with index_repo or listing when-not-to-use (e.g. large-scale changes).

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