Rebuild the entire search index for a codebase to fix outdated or incomplete results. Provide the root path to trigger a full re-index and refresh semantic code search data.
Force complete re-indexing of a codebase.
Args: path: Root path of codebase
Returns: Indexing result summary
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | . |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.20Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The phrase 'Force complete re-indexing' implies potential destructiveness or heavy resource usage, but the description does not elaborate on side effects (e.g., index reset, downtime, performance impact), making it insufficiently 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?
The description is brief with only two sentences and an Args/Returns block, which is front-loaded and efficient. However, the Args block redundantly lists the parameter already defined in the schema, slightly reducing conciseness value.
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 the tool's potentially heavy operation (full re-indexing), the description lacks critical context such as prerequisites (e.g., existing index), impact on ongoing operations, or time expectations. The output schema exists but the description only says 'Indexing result summary,' which is vague. The description is adequate but not complete for safe usage.
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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains 'path' as 'Root path of codebase,' which adds basic meaning beyond the schema's type/name, but it lacks details on path format, allowed values, or constraints. This is minimal improvement, hence a mid-range score.
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 explicitly states 'Force complete re-indexing of a codebase,' combining a strong verb ('Force complete re-indexing') with the resource ('codebase'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like code_search or index_status, which serve different purposes.
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?
No guidance is provided on when or why to use this tool, nor when to avoid it. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions for use, or comparison to alternatives like preview_index or index_status, leaving the agent without context for appropriate invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.