lxDIG MCP

graph_rebuild

Rebuilds the code graph from source files to enable structural analysis and persistent memory for AI coding assistants.

Instructions

Rebuild code graph from source

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": "graph_rebuild"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mode`	No	Build mode	incremental
`verbose`	No	Verbose output
`workspaceRoot`	No	Workspace root path (absolute preferred)
`workspacePath`	No	Alias for workspaceRoot
`sourceDir`	No	Source directory path (absolute or relative to workspace root)
`projectId`	No	Project namespace for graph isolation
`profile`	No	Response profile	compact
`indexDocs`	No	Index markdown documentation files (READMEs, ADRs) during rebuild (default: true). Set false to skip docs indexing.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

C2.2/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It fails to disclose side effects (e.g., overwrites existing graph), required prior setup, or execution characteristics. This is a critical gap.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The single-sentence description is too short given the tool's complexity (8 parameters). It lacks structure and key information, making it under-specified rather than concise.

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?

Without output schema or annotations, the description should provide more context about rebuild behavior, input requirements, and outcomes. It is insufficient for an 8-parameter tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds no extra meaning beyond schema for parameters like mode, verbose, etc.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description 'Rebuild code graph from source' states the verb and resource, but is vague about what 'rebuild' entails. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like graph_health or graph_set_workspace.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., incremental vs full rebuild, or when to use graph_health). The description does not mention prerequisites or typical use cases.

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