Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ollqd

ollqd

by leomarviegas
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

index_codebase

Index a codebase directory into Qdrant by walking files, chunking at code boundaries, embedding via Ollama, and upserting vectors for semantic search.

Instructions

Index a codebase directory into Qdrant. Walks files, chunks at code boundaries, embeds via Ollama, upserts to Qdrant.

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": {
      "root_path": "<root_path>"
    },
    "name": "index_codebase"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
root_pathYes
chunk_sizeNo
collectionNocodebase
incrementalNo
chunk_overlapNo
extra_skip_dirsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description provides some behavioral context (walks files, chunks, embeds, upserts), but misses details on side effects (e.g., overwriting existing data), authorization needs, or idempotency. The term 'upserts' implies potential overwrite but not explicitly stated.

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?

The description is extremely concise with two sentences that pack the core process. No superfluous words, front-loading the key action.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The description is incomplete given no output schema and 6 unannotated parameters. It lacks return value description, error handling, parameter defaults, and any mention of the incremental flag or extra_skip_dirs. Users would need external knowledge.

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%, and the description does not explain any parameter meanings. It mentions 'codebase directory' (likely root_path) and 'chunks' (chunk_size), but fails to map clearly to all six parameters, leaving significant gaps.

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 clearly states the action 'Index a codebase directory into Qdrant' and outlines the pipeline. It distinguishes from sibling tools like index_documents and semantic_search by specifying 'codebase directory' and 'chunks at code boundaries'.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or refer to sibling tools for other purposes.

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