Skip to main content
Glama

Find who serves and calls an operation

get_operation
Read-onlyIdempotent

Start here when you know an operation but not the service: given a method and a path, it returns every service that serves it, every call site that reaches it, and the recorded calls that resolved to no producer, with a file and line on each. Use it before changing or removing a route to see the blast radius, and to answer "who serves this" without guessing a service first. Every response also names what the index holds one method or one path segment away, so a call recorded under a neighbouring method or path version cannot read as a confident zero. Bounded to one operation; for the whole topology use get_service_graph, for request/response types get_endpoint_types. Reference: https://docs.carrick.tools/mcp-tools

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesRoute path (e.g. /api/users/:id — `:id`, `{id}` and `${expr}` all resolve), GraphQL field, socket event, or pub/sub topic. A `{field=value}` dispatch suffix, as the listings print it, narrows the producers to that case. Host-free: internal operations are indexed by route path, not by URL.
repoNoYour repo as owner/repo (git remote) or just the repo name. Resolves which Carrick project to query.
methodYesHTTP method (GET, POST, PUT, DELETE) — or, for a non-HTTP operation, its label from get_api_endpoints (QUERY, MUTATION, CLIENT->SERVER, PUBSUB). UNKNOWN names both a socket row whose direction the scan could not read and an HTTP route whose verb it could not read; each returned row names its protocol.
projectNoCarrick project slug to query. Omit to auto-resolve via `repo`, or omit both when the workspace has one project.
serviceNoNarrow the CALL-SITE sections (consumers, unmatched calls, consumer-side near misses) to one service. Producers are always project-wide. Use it to cut a hub operation's consumer list down, not to find the producer.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by disclosing the exact return shape (producers, call sites, unmatched calls, each with file and line), a subtle near-miss guarantee about neighbouring methods and path versions, and the scoping limit of one operation. This is meaningful behavioral context the annotations cannot convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the core usage condition and the return summary, then layers in the near-miss caveat and sibling routing. Every sentence carries information, though it runs dense and long enough that a small trim would help.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so completely: producers, call sites, unmatched calls, file/line locations, near-miss disclosure, and one-operation bounds. Nothing an agent needs before calling 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 method, path, repo, project, and service narrowing are already documented in the schema, including the service-narrows-call-sites detail. The description only restates "a method and a path" and adds no syntax or format guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — given a method and path, return every service that serves it plus call sites — and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings get_service_graph and get_endpoint_types. An agent can identify the tool and its boundary without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly says when to reach for it ("Start here when you know an operation but not the service", "Use it before changing or removing a route to see the blast radius") and routes elsewhere for adjacent needs (whole topology → get_service_graph, request/response types → get_endpoint_types).

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.