Skip to main content
Glama

Symvanta

by com.symvanta

reindex_repository

Dispatch a reindex job for an already-attached repository (repositoryId from list_repositories / add_repository). Optional commit_sha pin. force:true re-applies the current parser even when unchanged at HEAD: it bypasses the per-file hash-skip AND re-runs the SCIP indexer subprocesses (no same-sha .scip cache serve), so a parser fix inside a SCIP runner, an external-moniker re-pin, or a toolchain upgrade takes effect without a version bump.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
forceNoRe-parse every file AND re-run the SCIP indexer subprocesses even if unchanged at HEAD (for a parser fix without a version bump)
feedbackNoOptional: report how a previous answer worked out; piggybacks on any call.
projectIdNoProject id from init/list_projects. Omit for the active project.
commit_shaNoPin to a commit (omit for latest)
repositoryIdYesEncoded repository ID (from list_repositories/add_repository)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses meaningful internal behavior: force bypasses per-file hash-skip, re-runs SCIP subprocesses, and avoids serving a same-sha .scip cache. This goes well beyond the annotations, though it does not explain whether the dispatch is asynchronous or what the response/return value looks like.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then efficiently expands on the important force flag. Every clause earns its place, and the two-sentence structure makes the key behavior easy to parse without burying it in filler.

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 dispatch-style tool, the description gives enough context to select and invoke it correctly: target repository, optional commit pin, and force semantics. It lacks only a note about what the call returns or that the job may run asynchronously, which would round out the picture given there is no output schema.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by explaining why force:true is needed for parser fixes, external-moniker re-pins, and toolchain upgrades, and by anchoring repositoryId to the list_repositories/add_repository flow.

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 uses a specific verb ('Dispatch') and names the resource ('a reindex job') plus the exact scope: an already-attached repository. It also clarifies the source of repositoryId, which distinguishes it from repository management tools like add_repository or list_repositories.

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 clearly states the prerequisite (repository already attached) and where to get the repositoryId, and it gives concrete scenarios for when to use force:true. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like add_repository, but the intended usage path is still unambiguous.

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

All Symvanta toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools generally target distinct operations—repository attachment, symbol resolution, graph traversal, source access, indexing health—and the detailed routing notes reduce ambiguity. A few pairs still overlap in intent (quick_lookup vs locate symbol, context vs ask_codebase), so it is not perfectly unambiguous.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are lowercase snake_case and readable, but the set mixes verb_noun patterns like add_repository and list_projects with single-word nouns/verbs like context, history, map, relate, and source, plus one acronym (adr). There is no predictable convention across the full surface, though individual names are clear.

Tool Count3/5

25 tools is at the high end for a single MCP server and falls in the 'feels heavy' range. The breadth is justified by the code-intelligence/query domain, but the selection surface is large for an agent to navigate efficiently.

Completeness4/5

The code indexing, search, graph query, source access, history, ADR, test lookup, and scope estimation needs are well covered. Minor gaps remain—no detach/remove repository, no ADR content editing, and source access is gated by an add-on—but these are workable.

Resources