Skip to main content
Glama
omniwaifu

Pydantic AI Documentation Server

by omniwaifu

update_documentation

Update and rebuild the Pydantic AI documentation search index by cloning the repository and parsing documentation files.

Instructions

Clones/updates the Pydantic repo, parses docs, and rebuilds the search index.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
force_cloneNo

Implementation Reference

  • The implementation of the `update_documentation` tool, which orchestrates cloning/updating the repository and returning a status response.
    @app.tool()
    async def update_documentation(force_clone: bool = False) -> StatusResponse:
        """Clones/updates the Pydantic repo, parses docs, and rebuilds the search index."""
        logger.info(f"update_documentation called with force_clone={force_clone}")
        try:
            repo_update_result = clone_or_pull_repository(force_clone)
            logger.info(f"Repository update result: {repo_update_result}")
    
            if repo_update_result.get("status") == "error":
                return StatusResponse(
                    status="error",
                    message=repo_update_result.get("message", "Repository update failed"),
                    data=repo_update_result,
                )
    
            commit_hash = get_current_commit_hash()
    
            return StatusResponse(
                status="success",
                message=f"Documentation updated successfully from commit {commit_hash}.",
                data={"commit_hash": commit_hash},
            )
    
        except Exception as e:
            logger.error(f"Error in update_documentation: {e}", exc_info=True)
            return StatusResponse(
                status="error", message=str(e), data={"error_details": str(e)}
            )
Behavior2/5

Does 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. It mentions cloning/updating and rebuilding, which implies mutation operations, but doesn't specify whether this is destructive, requires authentication, has side effects on existing documentation, or involves rate limits. The description lacks critical behavioral context for a tool that modifies repository content and search indexes.

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 extremely concise at just one sentence that efficiently describes the tool's three main operations. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information. The structure is front-loaded with the core functionality, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand what the tool does.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (involving repository operations, parsing, and index rebuilding) with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'updates' means versus 'clones', what format the search index takes, whether the operation is idempotent, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool with infrastructure impact, this leaves too many gaps.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The description doesn't mention the 'force_clone' parameter at all, and with 0% schema description coverage, the parameter remains undocumented in both schema and description. However, since there's only one parameter, the baseline is higher than for multi-parameter tools. The description's mention of 'clones/updates' provides some implicit context for what 'force_clone' might control, but this is insufficient for clear parameter understanding.

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 states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('clones/updates', 'parses', 'rebuilds') and identifies the target resource ('Pydantic repo', 'docs', 'search index'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on retrieving content rather than updating infrastructure. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from potential non-sibling tools that might perform similar operations on different repositories.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing repository access), frequency considerations, or when the 'force_clone' parameter should be used. With sibling tools focused on content retrieval, there's no explicit comparison to help an agent decide between update operations and read operations.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/omniwaifu/pydantic-ai-docs-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server