EX MCP Server

{ "status": "calling_expert_analysis", "step_number": 1, "total_steps": 1, "next_step_required": false, "continuation_id": "124414b2-fb86-4718-b1be-b450183aaca0", "file_context": { "type": "fully_embedded", "files_embedded": 1, "context_optimization": "Full file content embedded for expert analysis" }, "expert_analysis": { "status": "analysis_complete", "raw_analysis": "## Executive Overview\nThe `analyze.py` tool implements a sophisticated step-by-step code analysis workflow with expert validation capabilities. While it demonstrates strong architectural patterns and comprehensive analysis features, it suffers from significant complexity in workflow management, tight coupling between components, and potential performance bottlenecks in file handling. The tool's strength lies in its systematic approach to analysis, but its intricate design may hinder maintainability and scalability.\n\n## Strategic Findings (Ordered by Impact)\n\n### 1. Excessive Workflow Complexity\n**Insight:** The tool's workflow management is overly complex with multiple layers of abstraction and numerous hook methods that create cognitive overhead and maintenance challenges.\n**Evidence:** The `AnalyzeTool` class (lines 210-683) contains 20+ overridden methods including `customize_workflow_response` (lines 626-673), `get_analyze_step_guidance` (lines 589-624), and multiple status mapping methods. The workflow requires managing 12+ fields in `AnalyzeWorkflowRequest` (lines 105-207) with intricate validation logic.\n**Impact:** High complexity increases bug risk during maintenance, slows onboarding for new developers, and makes feature additions error-prone. The numerous hooks and overrides create a \"spaghetti\" effect where changes have unpredictable side effects.\n**Recommendation:** Simplify the workflow by consolidating related hooks into fewer, more focused methods. Extract status mapping logic into a dedicated configuration object. Consider using a state machine pattern for workflow transitions instead of method overrides.\n**Effort vs. Benefit:** High effort; High payoff (significant maintainability improvement)\n\n### 2. Inefficient File Handling with Subprocess Calls\n**Insight:** The tool relies on subprocess calls for file discovery during initialization, creating performance bottlenecks and environmental dependencies.\n**Evidence:** In `validate_step_one_requirements` (lines 168-187), the tool executes `git status --porcelain` via subprocess to discover changed files. This occurs during validation and can block initialization, especially in large repositories.\n**Impact:** Subprocess calls introduce latency, fail in non-git environments, and create external dependencies. The 50-file cap (line 183) may exclude relevant files, while fallback to `[\".\"]` (line 185) is too broad for meaningful analysis.\n**Recommendation:** Replace subprocess-based discovery with a configurable file scanner service. Implement lazy loading of file lists and provide explicit file selection options instead of relying on git state.\n**Effort vs. Benefit:** Medium effort; High payoff (improves performance and reliability)\n\n### 3. Tight Coupling Between Workflow and Analysis Logic\n**Insight:** Analysis-specific logic is deeply embedded in the workflow orchestration, reducing reusability and making changes difficult.\n**Evidence:** Methods like `prepare_expert_analysis_context` (lines 400-436) hardcode analysis-specific formatting, while `get_required_actions` (lines 354-385) embeds analysis tasks directly in workflow logic. The tool cannot be easily repurposed for non-analysis workflows.\n**Impact:** Changes to analysis requirements require modifying core workflow components, increasing regression risk. The tight coupling prevents reuse of the workflow engine for other purposes.\n**Recommendation:** Extract analysis-specific behaviors into strategy pattern implementations. Define clear interfaces between workflow orchestration and domain logic to enable independent evolution.\n**Effort vs. Benefit:** Medium effort; High payoff (improves modularity and extensibility)\n\n### 4. Verbose and Repetitive Guidance Messages\n**Insight:** The tool generates excessively verbose guidance messages that may overwhelm users and reduce compliance.\n**Evidence:** Step guidance messages (lines 597-622) contain repetitive warnings like \"MANDATORY: DO NOT call\" and \"STOP! Do NOT call\" with over 200 words per instruction. The completion message (lines 552-558) is similarly verbose.\n**Impact:** Users may skip critical instructions due to information overload, leading to incorrect tool usage. The verbosity creates friction in the user experience and reduces adoption.\n**Recommendation:** Simplify guidance to essential actions using bullet points. Move detailed explanations to documentation. Implement a verbosity setting to allow users to control detail level.\n**Effort vs. Benefit:** Low effort; Medium payoff (improves user experience)\n\n### 5. Fragile Reflection-Based Attribute Access\n**Insight:** The tool uses reflection and dynamic attribute access that reduces type safety and increases runtime error risk.\n**Evidence:** Line 164 uses `getattr(self, \"continuation_id\", None)` to check optional attributes. Status mapping in `customize_workflow_response` (lines 642-671) relies on string-based field manipulation that could break with structural changes.\n**Impact:** Dynamic access patterns make code harder to reason about, prevent static analysis, and increase the likelihood of runtime errors during refactoring.\n**Recommendation:** Replace dynamic attribute access with explicit interfaces and optional parameters. Use well-defined data structures for status mapping instead of string manipulation.\n**Effort vs. Benefit:** Medium effort; Medium payoff (improves stability and maintainability)\n\n## Quick Wins\n- **Remove subprocess dependency** in `validate_step_one_requirements` by replacing git status calls with a simple file list parameter or configuration-based approach\n- **Shorten guidance messages** by 50% by removing repetitive warnings and focusing on essential actions\n- **Add type hints** to all method signatures to improve code clarity and enable static analysis\n- **Consolidate status mappings** into a single configuration dictionary instead of scattered string manipulations\n- **Implement input validation** for file paths to prevent security issues from path traversal attacks\n\n## Long-Term Roadmap Suggestions\n1. **Phase 1: Decouple Core Components** - Extract analysis logic from workflow orchestration using strategy pattern\n2. **Phase 2: Simplify Workflow Engine** - Replace complex hook system with state machine or explicit workflow definitions\n3. **Phase 3: Performance Optimization** - Implement lazy file loading and caching for large codebases\n4. **Phase 4: UX Enhancement** - Add verbosity controls and progressive disclosure for guidance messages\n\n## Next Steps\n1. **Immediate refactor** of `validate_step_one_requirements` to eliminate subprocess calls and simplify file handling logic\n2. **Consolidate status mapping** logic into a dedicated configuration class to reduce string manipulation\n3. **Create interface definitions** for workflow components to enable future decoupling of analysis logic\n\nThese changes will significantly improve the tool's maintainability, performance, and user experience while preserving its powerful analysis capabilities. The complexity reduction will make the codebase more approachable for future development and reduce the risk of defects during maintenance.", "parse_error": "Response was not valid JSON" }, "next_steps": "ANALYSIS IS COMPLETE. You MUST now summarize and present ALL analysis findings organized by strategic impact (Critical → High → Medium → Low), specific architectural insights with code references, and exact recommendations for improvement. Clearly prioritize the top 3 strategic opportunities that need immediate attention. Provide concrete, actionable guidance for each finding—make it easy for a developer to understand exactly what strategic improvements to implement and how to approach them.\n\nIMPORTANT: Analysis from an assistant model has been provided above. You MUST thoughtfully evaluate and validate the expert insights rather than treating them as definitive conclusions. Cross-reference the expert analysis with your own systematic investigation, verify that architectural recommendations are appropriate for this codebase's scale and context, and ensure suggested improvements align with the project's goals and constraints. Present a comprehensive synthesis that combines your detailed analysis with validated expert perspectives, clearly distinguishing between patterns you've independently identified and additional strategic insights from expert validation.", "important_considerations": "IMPORTANT: Analysis from an assistant model has been provided above. You MUST thoughtfully evaluate and validate the expert insights rather than treating them as definitive conclusions. Cross-reference the expert analysis with your own systematic investigation, verify that architectural recommendations are appropriate for this codebase's scale and context, and ensure suggested improvements align with the project's goals and constraints. Present a comprehensive synthesis that combines your detailed analysis with validated expert perspectives, clearly distinguishing between patterns you've independently identified and additional strategic insights from expert validation.", "analysis_status": { "files_checked": 0, "relevant_files": 1, "relevant_context": 0, "issues_found": 0, "images_collected": 0, "current_confidence": "low", "insights_by_severity": {}, "analysis_confidence": "low" }, "complete_analysis": { "initial_request": "Assess the analyze tool implementation for flaws, inefficiencies, instability, and UX complexity risks.", "steps_taken": 1, "files_examined": [], "relevant_files": [ "C:\\Project\\EX-AI-MCP-Server\\tools\\analyze.py" ], "relevant_context": [], "issues_found": [], "work_summary": "=== ANALYZE WORK SUMMARY ===\nTotal steps: 1\nFiles examined: 0\nRelevant files identified: 1\nMethods/functions involved: 0\nIssues found: 0\n\n=== WORK PROGRESSION ===\nStep 1: " }, "analysis_complete": true, "metadata": { "tool_name": "analyze", "model_used": "glm-4.5", "provider_used": "unknown" } }