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

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": {
      "method": "<method>",
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "get_operation"
  }
}

Input 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. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: results include unmatched calls with file/line, the response names near-miss methods and path versions one segment away, and producers are always project-wide while only call-site sections narrow. It stops short of describing response section ordering or any latency/limit behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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-loaded with the core contract and the alternative routing, with each sentence carrying information. It runs slightly long, and the trailing documentation URL adds little for an agent that already has the schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so reasonably, naming the three result groups and the near-miss metadata that prevents false zero-result readings. It could say more about how sections are structured in the response, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter descriptions are already unusually rich (path syntax variants, UNKNOWN method semantics, service narrowing only consumer sections). The description adds only the scope constraint 'bounded to one operation,' so the schema does the heavy lifting and the baseline 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 in concrete terms: given a method and path, it returns every serving service, every call site, and unmatched calls, each with file and line. It also explicitly differentiates itself from siblings by naming get_service_graph for whole topology and get_endpoint_types for request/response types.

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?

Gives an explicit entry condition ('Start here when you know an operation but not the service'), a task context ('use it before changing or removing a route to see the blast radius'), and named alternatives with the conditions that select them. Nothing is left to inference.

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.