agent-memory-mcp

memory_reindex

Reindex memories in the store, updating embeddings and refreshing index entries. Optionally target specific memory IDs or force a full rebuild.

Instructions

Explicitly embed active memories using the configured provider. Optional IDs or bounded batch; unchanged indexes are reused unless force:true.

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": "memory_reindex"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ids`	No
`force`	No
`limit`	No
`project`	No
`after_id`	No
`namespace`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.1Sep 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description explains meaningful side effects beyond annotations: it explicitly embeds memories, can operate on a bounded batch, and reuses unchanged indexes unless force is true. This adds useful behavioral context, though it omits error conditions, rate limits, or cost implications.

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 a single, compact sentence that packs the core purpose and key behavior without unnecessary words. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

With six parameters and no output schema, the description does not provide enough context to understand how parameters relate (e.g., after_id vs. limit pagination, namespace vs. project scoping). An agent would likely need external documentation to call this correctly.

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 only vaguely hints at 'Optional IDs or bounded batch'. The roles of limit, after_id, project, namespace, and force are not clearly explained, leaving substantial ambiguity for callers.

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?

The description clearly identifies the tool's action ('Explicitly embed active memories') and resource ('active memories using the configured provider'). It also distinguishes reindexing from plain add/update/search operations by mentioning index reuse and force behavior, though it does not directly name sibling alternatives.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description gives some usage hints ('Optional IDs or bounded batch', 'unchanged indexes are reused unless force:true') but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over memory_add, memory_update, or other sibling tools. The intended invocation scenarios remain largely inferential.

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