codetopo_indexIndex a source repository into a codetopo graph database, creating a deterministic, queryable code graph of symbols, calls, and references for agent queries.
Index a repository into a codetopo graph database.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| db_path | Yes | Path of the database to create. | |
| package | No | Package name. Defaults to the repository directory name. | |
| repo_path | Yes | Path to the repository to index. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world write operation. The description adds essentially no behavioral context beyond that: it doesn't say whether an existing database is overwritten, whether indexing is incremental or full, how long it takes, or what permissions are needed.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately terse, though it leaves out information a mutation tool of this kind would benefit from.
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?
For a tool that creates/writes a database, the description omits the operational context an agent needs: ordering relative to the query tools, overwrite/incremental behavior, and error or rate-limit expectations. Annotations cover safety and the schema covers parameters, but the usage and lifecycle picture remains incomplete.
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 all three parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or default details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (Index) and resource (repository) plus the target artifact (codetopo graph database), which is clear and distinct from the query-oriented siblings. It does not explicitly name any sibling or scope condition, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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?
There is no guidance on when to run this versus the other codetopo_* tools, no prerequisites (e.g., must it run before queries), and no indication of alternatives. The only context is implied by the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.