Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
flameox

flameox

by morluto
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

rebuild_catalog

Idempotent

Rebuild the disposable catalog from immutable corpus evidence, restoring accurate indexing for reliable queries and audits.

Instructions

Rebuild only the disposable catalog from immutable corpus evidence.

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": "rebuild_catalog"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.15

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate this is idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds useful context by calling the catalog 'disposable' and specifying that it is rebuilt from 'immutable corpus evidence', which implies the source is not modified and the catalog can be safely regenerated. It aligns with annotations without contradicting them.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action ('Rebuild'), specifies the object, and adds the key constraints of 'only', 'disposable', and 'immutable corpus evidence' without unnecessary elaboration.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the zero-parameter signature, output schema, and useful annotations, the description covers the core intent well. The main remaining gap is the lack of when-to-use guidance or alternative routing, but for a simple parameterless rebuild operation this is not a critical omission.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is effectively 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. This is the appropriate baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Rebuild only the disposable catalog'. It further distinguishes the operation by specifying the source as 'immutable corpus evidence' and limiting scope with 'only'. This makes it clearly distinguishable from siblings like initialize_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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites. The phrase 'Rebuild only...' implies a narrow scope, but it does not tell an agent when a rebuild is appropriate or what signals should trigger it.

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