Skip to main content
Glama
Srinivasan-78

io.github.Srinivasan-78/repo2graph

by Srinivasan-78
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

repo_neighbours

Read-onlyIdempotent

Explore a code graph from a specific node to list callers, callees, base classes, and definitions. Traverse up to four hops to map dependencies for any function, file, or directory.

Instructions

Traverse code graph relationships from a known symbol or file node_id (callers, callees, base classes, definitions). Read-only, deterministic traversal, no side effects. When to use: use with a specific node_id (e.g. from repo_search citations) to inspect callers (CALLS in), callees (CALLS out), inheritance, or definitions. When NOT to use: do not use for text search across code (use repo_search) or repo overview (use repo_map). Output: markdown list formatted as - <EDGE_TYPE> <in|out>: <name> (<path:line>) [<node_id>].

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hopsNoTraversal depth from node_id (default 1, max 4).
limitNoMaximum neighbor rows to return (default 20, max 50).
node_idYesTarget graph node identifier to expand from (e.g. 'sym:pkg/mod.py::func', 'file:pkg/mod.py', 'dir:pkg').

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.5.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / hops / description
      Previous value: -"graph hops (default 1, max 4)"New value: +"Traversal depth from node_id (default 1, max 4)."
    • changedInput schema / properties / limit / description
      Previous value: -"neighbours (default 20, max 50)"New value: +"Maximum neighbor rows to return (default 20, max 50)."
    • changedInput schema / properties / node_id / description
      Previous value: -"e.g. sym:pkg/a.py::run"New value: +"Target graph node identifier to expand from (e.g. 'sym:pkg/mod.py::func', 'file:pkg/mod.py', 'dir:pkg')."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description states 'Read-only, deterministic traversal, no side effects' and describes the output format as a markdown list with edge types. Annotations already convey read-only/idempotent/destructive hints, but the addition of 'deterministic traversal' and the exact output layout adds value beyond annotations.

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 front-loads the core purpose, then gives usage guidance, exclusions, and output format in compact sentences. Every sentence earns its place; no redundant filler or restating of schema fields.

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 tool with no output schema and moderate complexity, the description covers invocation context, parameter source, exclusions, and output format. It could enumerate all possible edge types, but the format example plus 'callers, callees, base classes, definitions' is sufficient for an agent to use it correctly.

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 clear descriptions and examples for node_id, hops, and limit. The description adds the hint that node_id typically comes from repo_search citations, but this is contextual rather than necessary to parse the parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already handles semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Traverse') and clearly identifies the resource ('code graph relationships') and scope ('from a known symbol or file node_id'). It also names the sibling tools it is not ('do not use for text search ... use repo_search') which solidifies differentiation.

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?

Explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections give concrete conditions and name alternatives (repo_search, repo_map). It also advises pairing with a node_id from repo_search citations, which is actionable guidance agents can follow directly.

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