Skip to main content
Glama
turbyho

fw-context-mcp

by turbyho
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

reset_index

Delete a project's symbol index to clear stale or corrupt data. Run a dry-run first, then confirm deletion and re-index with fw-context index.

Instructions

Delete the entire symbol index for a project.

Not read-only — permanently deletes the SQLite database and WAL files. Call with confirm=False first (dry-run) to see what would be deleted. Re-index with fw-context index afterwards.

Handles corrupt databases gracefully — you can delete a corrupt index without needing to open it first.

Args: project_root: Project root directory. Auto-detected if omitted. project: Project name or project_id — call list_projects to get them. Use it to ask about a project that is not the project of the current directory. It is an alternative to project_root, which takes a root path. Give one of the two, not both. confirm: Must be True to execute. Call without first as dry-run.

Returns: dict: {project_root, db, project_id, action: "dry_run"|"deleted", message, symbol_count, indexed_at (dry-run)}.

A ``warning`` key means that the database is corrupt — the
integrity check failed, thus the counts can be incomplete.

On failure the dict holds only ``error`` with the reason.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
confirmNoMust be True to execute. Call without confirm first as dry-run.
projectNoProject name or project_id — call list_projects to get them. Use it to ask about a project that is not the project of the current directory. It is an alternative to project_root, which takes a root path. Give one of the two, not both.
project_rootNoProject root. Auto-detected if omitted. This field also accepts a project name or a project_id, but project is the clear field for those.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.30.0
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / project
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Project name or project_id — call list_projects to get them. Use it to ask about a project that is not the project of the current directory. It is an alternative to project_root, which takes a root path. Give one of the two, not both.",
+  "title": "Project"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / project_root / description
      Previous value: -"Project root. Auto-detected if omitted."New value: +"Project root. Auto-detected if omitted. This field also accepts a project name or a project_id, but project is the clear field for those."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly warns that the operation is not read-only, permanently deletes the SQLite database and WAL files, supports dry-run, handles corrupt databases gracefully, and documents the warning key and failure result shape.

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 appropriately sized for a destructive tool. It front-loads the purpose and danger, then provides structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds useful information, including the corrupt-database behavior and re-indexing follow-up.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given no output schema, the Returns section fully documents the response dict, dry-run vs deleted action, warning semantics, and error-only failure case. All parameters are covered by the schema, and the destructive side effects are clearly disclosed. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mostly restates the schema: project_root auto-detection, project as an alternative to project_root, and confirm default false. It adds no material meaning beyond the schema.

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 action and resource: "Delete the entire symbol index for a project." This clearly distinguishes reset_index from sibling tools like reindex_file, which rebuild rather than delete the index.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear usage guidance: call with confirm=False first as a dry-run, pass confirm=True to execute, and re-index with fw-context index afterward. It does not explicitly contrast against sibling tools like reindex_file, so it falls short of full alternative-selection guidance.

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