Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Senior Code MCP

Senior Code MCP

by Tamaz-sujashvili
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

search_related_code

Finds related code by traversing structural call and import graphs, returning callers, callees, and imports with hop distance from specified names.

Instructions

Structural search: expand the graph from names up to hops away.

Returns neighbor nodes (callers/callees/imports) with hop distance. Requires the repo to have been ingested (graph.json present).

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": {
      "names": "<names>"
    },
    "name": "search_related_code"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hopsNo
namesYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
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 prerequisite (graph.json exists), the read-only nature of the search, and the return format (neighbor nodes with distance). It does not elaborate on error handling when prerequisites are not met.

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 three crisp sentences, front-loaded with the main action, followed by output and prerequisites. No redundant words or information.

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?

Given an output schema exists, the description adequately covers purpose, parameters, and a critical prerequisite. It lacks edge-case behavior, but the core information needed for correct invocation is present.

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?

The description explains that 'names' are the starting points and 'hops' is the distance limit, adding meaning beyond the schema's types and default. It also implies names refer to symbols in the ingested graph, which is helpful.

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 clearly states it performs structural search by expanding a graph from given names up to a hop distance. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying callers/callees/imports, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

It provides clear context as a structural search and gives a prerequisite (repo must be ingested), which helps the agent know when it is applicable. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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