Detects circular dependencies, layer violations, and churn hotspots in a repository, then compiles Mermaid graphs to reveal architectural risks.
Run Tarjan SCC circular dependency detection, architectural layer violation checks, Git churn hotspot analysis, and Mermaid graph compilation on a repository.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | Repository root path (default '.') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It lists the analyses performed but omits whether the operation is read-only, whether it writes files (e.g., Mermaid graph compilation), Git repository requirements, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a multi-analysis tool.
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?
A single dense sentence that front-loads the action and enumerates the analyses without filler. It is appropriately sized for a tool that bundles four distinct checks.
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?
The description conveys what analyses run, which is the core information. But for a multi-analysis tool with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks prerequisites, behavioral expectations, and any hints about results or side effects. Minimum viable with clear gaps.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single 'path' parameter, including its default ('.'). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the schema fully bears the load. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 states a specific verb ('Run') and enumerates four concrete analyses (Tarjan SCC, architectural layer violations, Git churn hotspots, Mermaid compilation), making the purpose very clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from any of its six siblings (e.g., ctxray_blast_radius, ctxray_trace), so it misses the sibling-differentiation requirement for a 5.
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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no prerequisites despite six sibling tools. It only states what it does, leaving an agent to infer when this comprehensive analysis is appropriate versus more targeted siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.