Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
patchwork-os

patchwork-os

by Oolab-labs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

refactorAnalyze

Read-only

Analyzes refactoring impact by evaluating rename safety, reference and caller counts, and risk level before performing a symbol rename.

Instructions

Refactor impact: rename safety, ref/caller counts, risk level (low/medium/high). Use before renameSymbol.

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": {
      "filePath": "<filePath>",
      "line": "<line>",
      "column": "<column>"
    },
    "name": "refactorAnalyze"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
lineYesLine number (1-based)
columnYesColumn (1-based)
filePathYesWorkspace or absolute path

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Describes output (rename safety, ref/caller counts, risk level) beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true). No contradictions, but could elaborate on computational cost or side effects.

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: first describes tool output, second gives usage guidance. No filler, front-loaded.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Adequately covers tool purpose and output for a read-only analysis tool with no output schema. Could mention expected return structure or error handling, but not critical.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Explicitly states it analyzes refactor impact for renaming, providing safety, reference/caller counts, and risk level. It also distinguishes itself by recommending use before renameSymbol, which is a sibling tool.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Directly instructs to use before renameSymbol, giving clear context. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios, but the directive is strong enough.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools