Rebuild vault or code indexes from scratch for a given project. Use this to fix corrupted or outdated indexes; prefer incremental sync for regular updates.
Full rebuild of vault and/or code indexes. Destructive to derived tables — requires explicit project. Prefer rms_sync for incremental catch-up.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| corpus | No | Which corpus to rebuild; default vault. | |
| project | Yes | Registered project key (required). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly warns that the operation is destructive to derived tables and requires explicit project selection, which are critical behavioral traits. It does not detail side effects like downtime or reversibility, but the core destructive behavior is transparent.
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?
Two sentences with no filler. The destructive warning and the required project condition are front-loaded, and the alternative tool is named efficiently. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
Given only two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, destructiveness, a required parameter, and the preferred alternative. It does not mention return behavior or further operational impacts, but for a simple reindex tool the core information an agent needs is present.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds context about full rebuild and 'vault and/or code indexes,' which loosely maps to the corpus parameter, but it does not provide additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 and resource: 'Full rebuild of vault and/or code indexes.' It clearly identifies the destructive nature and differentiates from rms_sync by naming the alternative. An agent can distinguish this tool from siblings without inspecting schemas.
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?
It explicitly says to prefer rms_sync for incremental catch-up, which tells the agent when not to use this tool. It also emphasizes that an explicit project is required, giving a clear prerequisite. This is strong usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.