Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
infrawise

infrawise

by Sidd27
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Full infrastructure graph

get_graph_summary
Read-only

Trace relationships across services and inspect the full finding set from a stored infrastructure snapshot, including nodes, code edges, and unresolved references.

Instructions

Returns extracted nodes, recognized code edges, all findings, and unresolvedReferences. Read dataHealth.codeCoverage: wrappers, dynamic names, and unsupported expressions may be missed, so missing edges never prove no runtime access. Use when tracing relationships across services or inspecting the full finding set; prefer get_infra_overview for quick orientation.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_graph_summary"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
maxAgeSecondsNoFreshness tolerance in seconds. Advisory: the answer is returned either way, with dataHealth.withinRequestedAge reporting whether it met the tolerance. Nothing re-reads AWS on a tool call — run `infrawise analyze` to refresh. Pass a small value for point-in-time questions ("does this queue have a DLQ right now"); omit it for architecture questions where a day-old snapshot is fine.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.26.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / maxAgeSeconds / description
      Previous value: -"Refuse to answer from an analysis older than this many seconds. Use a small value for point-in-time questions (\"does this queue have a DLQ right now\"); omit it for architecture questions where a day-old snapshot is fine."New value: +"Freshness tolerance in seconds. Advisory: the answer is returned either way, with dataHealth.withinRequestedAge reporting whether it met the tolerance. Nothing re-reads AWS on a tool call — run `infrawise analyze` to refresh. Pass a small value for point-in-time questions (\"does this queue have a DLQ right now\"); omit it for architecture questions where a day-old snapshot is fine."
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.25.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / maxAgeSeconds
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Refuse to answer from an analysis older than this many seconds. Use a small value for point-in-time questions (\"does this queue have a DLQ right now\"); omit it for architecture questions where a day-old snapshot is fine.",
+  "type": "number"
+}
  3. Addedv0.21.0
  4. Removedv0.19.7
  5. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint true, openWorldHint false), so the description correctly spends its space on the non-obvious caveat: gaps in dataHealth.codeCoverage mean missing edges never prove no runtime access. That is a genuinely useful epistemic limit not derivable from annotations, though it stops short of describing pagination, size, or shape of the payload.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler: return contents first, then the critical caveat, then the usage/routing sentence. Front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return contents and does so by enumerating the four payload categories, plus it flags the coverage caveat. It could say more about payload volume or how findings are structured, but nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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?

There is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself carrying rich guidance on when to pass a small maxAgeSeconds versus omitting it. The description does not mention the parameter at all, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names the specific contents returned (nodes, code edges, findings, unresolvedReferences) rather than restating the title, and it explicitly distinguishes itself from get_infra_overview. An agent can tell what this returns and how it differs from the sibling without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives both a positive condition ("when tracing relationships across services or inspecting the full finding set") and a routing rule to the alternative ("prefer get_infra_overview for quick orientation"). This is explicit when/when-not guidance against a named sibling.

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