$Refract$

Refract

index_repo

Walk a code repository to extract a structural index of functions, classes, imports, and dependencies up to 3 levels deep.

Instructions

Walk a repo (Python + JavaScript/TypeScript) and return an aggregated structural index: every function, class, import and dependency. Max depth 3; skips pycache, .git, venv, node_modules.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "index_repo"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes	Repo path (relative to --root or absolute).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.0Jul 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses maximum depth 3 and skipped directories (__pycache__, .git, venv, node_modules), but fails to mention behavior for unsupported file types, invalid paths, or performance implications for large repos. Additional context would improve transparency.

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?

The description is two concise sentences with front-loaded purpose and clear constraints. Every word adds value, no redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema, the description partially explains return value as 'aggregated structural index' listing functions, classes, imports, dependencies. However, it lacks details on output format (e.g., JSON structure, list vs. dict) and does not address edge cases like empty repos or mixed languages. It is acceptable 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 coverage is 100% with a single required 'path' parameter described adequately. The description adds no extra parameter details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate. The description's main value is in explaining the tool's overall function, not parameter specifics.

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?

The description clearly states the tool walks a repo and returns a structural index of functions, classes, imports, and dependencies, explicitly specifying supported languages (Python and JavaScript/TypeScript). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'blast_radius' or 'security_surface', which likely have different 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 description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'blast_radius' or 'expand'. It only implies usage for structural indexing, but lacks when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server