Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
CodeGuard

CodeGuard

by Skhaaall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

graph

Generate a Mermaid diagram of the dependency graph. Omit filePath for the full graph; provide filePath to center on that file with two levels of dependencies.

Instructions

Genere un diagramme Mermaid du graphe de dependances. Sans filePath = graphe complet, avec filePath = graphe centre sur ce fichier (2 niveaux).

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": "graph"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filePathNoFichier sur lequel centrer le graphe (optionnel — sans = graphe complet)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.2

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output format (Mermaid diagram) and the two behavioral modes (full graph vs centered with 2 levels). It could say more about what '2 levels' includes, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 short sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the behavioral distinction is stated compactly.

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?

For a simple tool with no output schema and one optional parameter, the description covers the essential context: what it does, the output type, and how the parameter changes behavior. It does not over-explain, and nothing critical seems missing for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning beyond the schema by specifying the '2 niveaux' depth behavior for filePath, which the schema does not mention. This is genuine added value.

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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Genere un diagramme Mermaid du graphe de dependances.' It clearly states what the tool produces. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'dependencies', but the Mermaid output makes it distinct enough.

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?

The description gives clear usage context: without filePath produces the complete graph, with filePath produces a graph centered on that file with 2 levels. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the optional-parameter guidance is explicit and actionable.

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