EX MCP Server

{ "status": "calling_expert_analysis", "step_number": 1, "total_steps": 1, "next_step_required": false, "continuation_id": "05549651-9dfb-46b2-938b-ba16d66cb9ca", "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 AnalyzeWorkflow tool is a well-intentioned attempt to formalize code analysis, but it suffers from architectural overengineering, excessive configuration layers, and UX complexity that will hinder adoption and maintenance. While it provides structured investigation tracking, the implementation introduces unnecessary cognitive overhead through 30+ configuration fields, brittle validation logic, and forced step-by-step workflows that may not suit all analysis scenarios.\n\n## Strategic Findings (Ordered by Impact)\n\n### 1. Configuration Overengineering\n**Insight:** The tool introduces 30+ fields with extensive validation mappings, creating a steep learning curve and maintenance burden.\n**Evidence:** Lines 39-102 define ANALYZE_WORKFLOW_FIELD_DESCRIPTIONS with 15 complex field descriptions; lines 272-352 build dynamic schemas with 20+ field overrides.\n**Impact:** New users must understand 15+ optional fields before productive use; any schema change requires updating 4+ locations (descriptions, model, schema builder, validation).\n**Recommendation:** Reduce to 5-7 core fields (files, analysis_type, findings, confidence, issues). Move advanced options to a separate \"expert mode\" configuration.\n**Effort vs. Benefit:** Medium effort; High payoff (faster onboarding, simpler maintenance)\n\n### 2. Brittle Step Validation Logic\n**Insight:** The step-1 validation (lines 152-192) contains complex conditional logic with 4 different fallback mechanisms that will break in edge cases.\n**Evidence:** Git fallback subprocess call (lines 169-187) has no timeout handling; environment variable fallback chain creates unpredictable behavior; continuation_id check bypasses validation inconsistently.\n**Impact:** Users will experience mysterious failures when git is unavailable, environment variables are misconfigured, or continuation patterns don't match expectations.\n**Recommendation:** Replace with simple required field validation and explicit `--auto-discover` flag for git-based file detection.\n**Effort vs. Benefit:** Low effort; High payoff (eliminates entire class of validation bugs)\n\n### 3. Forced Workflow Anti-Pattern\n**Insight:** The tool mandates sequential step-by-step investigation regardless of analysis needs, creating artificial friction.\n**Evidence:** Lines 586-624 generate mandatory stop messages; lines 354-385 define rigid 3-phase investigation sequence; lines 589-624 enforce specific investigation patterns.\n**Impact:** Simple analyses require 3+ tool calls; experienced analysts cannot skip unnecessary steps; workflow becomes bottleneck for urgent investigations.\n**Recommendation:** Implement adaptive workflow that allows single-call analysis for simple cases while maintaining step-by-step option for complex investigations.\n**Effort vs. Benefit:** Medium effort; High payoff (matches user intent, reduces call overhead)\n\n### 4. Expert Analysis Over-Reliance\n**Insight:** The tool always triggers external expert validation (lines 387-398, 495-502), creating unnecessary latency and cost for straightforward analyses.\n**Evidence:** should_call_expert_analysis() returns True for any non-empty findings; should_skip_expert_analysis() hardcoded to False.\n**Impact:** Every analysis incurs external model cost and 2-5 second latency, even for trivial code reviews; users cannot opt-out for simple cases.\n**Recommendation:** Make expert analysis opt-in with confidence-based triggers (only for high-complexity findings or explicit user request).\n**Effort vs. Benefit:** Low effort; Medium payoff (reduces costs, improves speed)\n\n### 5. Inheritance Complexity\n**Insight:** Deep inheritance chain (WorkflowTool → BaseTool) with 15+ override methods creates fragile base class coupling.\n**Evidence:** Lines 475-673 contain 20+ override methods; get_completion_status(), get_completion_data_key() suggest base class exposes too many implementation details.\n**Impact:** Base class changes will cascade through multiple override points; new developers must understand entire inheritance hierarchy.\n**Recommendation:** Favor composition over inheritance; create analysis strategy objects instead of overriding base behavior.\n**Effort vs. Benefit:** High effort; Medium payoff (long-term maintainability)\n\n## Quick Wins\n- **Remove git subprocess fallback** (lines 169-187): Replace with explicit file requirement or simple glob pattern\n- **Collapse 15 field descriptions** into 5 core fields with inline documentation\n- **Make expert analysis opt-in** via parameter instead of mandatory\n- **Add timeout handling** to any subprocess calls if kept\n- **Document the happy path** first in help text before advanced options\n\n## Long-Term Roadmap Suggestions\n1. **Simplify to core workflow**: Reduce to essential analysis loop (load files → analyze → report) with optional step tracking\n2. **Extract configuration layers**: Move field mappings, schema building, and validation into separate configuration objects\n3. **Implement analysis strategies**: Replace inheritance overrides with pluggable analysis strategies (quick review, deep dive, security focus)\n4. **Add progressive disclosure**: Begin with 3-field interface, expand to advanced mode only when needed\n\n## Next Steps\n1. **Immediate**: Remove git fallback and mandatory expert analysis to eliminate top failure modes\n2", "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": "kimi-k2-turbo-preview", "provider_used": "unknown" } }