token-pilot

module_info

Analyze module dependencies, dependents, public API, and unused dependencies to understand architecture and identify cleanup opportunities.

Instructions

Analyze module dependencies, dependents, public API, and unused deps. Use for architecture understanding and dependency cleanup.

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": {
      "module": "<module>"
    },
    "name": "module_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`module`	Yes	Module name or path pattern (e.g., "auth", "src/Domain/")
`check`	No	What to check: "deps" (dependencies), "dependents" (who depends on this), "api" (public symbols), "unused-deps" (dead dependencies), "all" (everything). Default: "all"

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.47.0Jun 24, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It discloses the types of checks performed but does not mention whether the tool is read-only, requires project setup, or has any side effects. Important behavioral traits are missing.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two concise sentences, no fluff. The first sentence states the action, the second gives purpose. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the input semantics adequately but omits any description of the return format or structure. Given low complexity (2 params), it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description lists the check types, which aligns with the enum, but does not add extra meaning about the 'module' parameter (e.g., pattern syntax, root context). No significant enhancement over schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states the tool analyzes module dependencies, dependents, public API, and unused deps, specifying the verb 'analyze' and the resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like find_unused or call_tree, which share similar purposes.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The second sentence gives a high-level use case ('architecture understanding and dependency cleanup'), but there is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. This leaves the agent without criteria for selection among related siblings.

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