llmstxt-doc-search

Refresh doc source

refresh_doc_source

Idempotent

Re-index an llms.txt documentation source to pick up new or changed docs, so search results stay up to date.

Instructions

Re-index a source from its llms.txt (pick up new/changed docs).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "refresh_doc_source"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Source name to refresh

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.0Oct 4, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```

First observedv0.1.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and repeatability profile is covered. The description usefully adds that content is pulled from llms.txt (explaining the open-world fetch), but says nothing about duration, rate limits, or what happens to previously indexed content.

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?

A single tight sentence with the action front-loaded and the clarifying mechanism tucked into a parenthetical. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a one-parameter re-index tool with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies enough to act correctly. A note on expected duration or whether the source must already exist would make it fully complete.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents 'name' as the source to refresh. The description adds no format, naming-convention, or lookup detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('re-index') and resource ('a source'), with the mechanism ('from its llms.txt') and outcome ('pick up new/changed docs'). This clearly separates it from add_doc_source and remove_doc_source, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The parenthetical 'pick up new/changed docs' implies the scenario for using it, but there is no explicit when-to-use-versus-alternatives statement or prerequisite guidance (e.g., after adding a source, or when docs changed upstream). Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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

Deploy Server