Analyzes import/require graphs in JS/TS/Python to find and isolate circular dependency loops.
Analyzes import/require dependency graphs across JS/TS/Python modules and isolates cyclic import loops. (0.015 USDC on Base L2)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payload | Yes | Input parameters or JSON string payload for the tool execution | |
| paymentSignature | No | Base L2 USDC micropayment signature or transaction hash for x402 settlement |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a static analysis-style operation ('Analyzes', 'isolates') but does not state expected outputs, limitations, failure modes, or whether it modifies anything. This is minimal but not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with clear action, target languages, and desired outcome. The pricing note is briefly appended without bloating the definition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema and no annotations, yet the description does not explain the expected input format, what the tool returns, or how cyclic loops are reported. This leaves an agent with significant ambiguity when invoking the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, but the parameter descriptions are generic ('Input parameters or JSON string payload'). The tool description adds domain meaning about dependency graphs but does not clarify what shape the payload should take, so it adds only marginal value beyond the schema baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Analyzes... isolates') and clearly names the resource: import/require dependency graphs across JS/TS/Python modules. This makes the tool's purpose immediately distinguishable from related siblings like scan_dependency_cve or validate_code_syntax.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended use case is implied: detect cyclic import loops in JS/TS/Python modules. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and does not name alternative tools or exclusion conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.