Find every file imported by a given source file to map outgoing dependencies and support refactoring or impact analysis.
Files imported by this file (outgoing file-level import edges).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | No | Project name/path (default: active). | |
| file_path | Yes | Relative path to the file. | |
| max_results | No | Maximum number of results to return (0 = unlimited, default 0). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's one contribution is defining 'dependencies' as file-level import edges, which distinguishes this from symbol-level relatives, but it discloses nothing about return shape, ordering, or recursion depth.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the direction qualifier arrives immediately. It is lean to the point of being undersized for the tool's role, but every word carries meaning.
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?
With no output schema, the description is the only place to explain what comes back, and it does not say whether results are paths, edge objects, or whether traversal is direct-only versus transitive. For a dependency-query tool sitting among several near-identical siblings, this leaves meaningful 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%, so project, file_path, and max_results are already fully documented. The description adds no parameter syntax, path semantics, or default behavior beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 names a specific resource ('files imported by this file') and pins the direction with 'outgoing file-level import edges', which is the key ambiguity against siblings like get_file_dependents. It stops short of naming an alternative tool, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating by name.
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?
There is no when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no mention of the many overlapping siblings (get_imports, get_dependencies, get_file_dependents, find_import_cycles). The 'outgoing' qualifier is definitional rather than guiding, leaving selection entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.