Trigger a rescan of skill directories to update the in-memory catalog, enabling list and suggestion tools to reflect new, changed, or removed skills.
Rescan skill roots into the in-memory catalog without restarting the MCP process. list_skills and suggest_skills then reflect new/changed/removed skills.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the side effect (updating the in-memory catalog) and specifies that it does not restart the MCP process, which satisfies transparency for a non-destructive operation. It does not mention potential performance implications, but the key behavioral aspects are covered.
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 concise, using two sentences that efficiently convey the action and its effect. There is no redundant information or unnecessary detail.
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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete enough for an agent to understand the purpose, the action taken, and the resulting state. It covers all necessary contextual information.
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?
With zero parameters, the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and since there are no parameters to describe, the score is appropriate.
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 clearly states the specific action ('rescan skill roots') and the resource (the in-memory catalog), and it differentiates from sibling tools by noting the effect on list_skills and suggest_skills. This makes the purpose unambiguous and distinct.
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?
The description implies when to use this tool (after skill changes to update the catalog) and indicates that list_skills and suggest_skills will reflect changes, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The context is clear, though not exhaustive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.