ShadowGit MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Read where code sits and what depends on it

get_code_context

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find where files and symbols sit, what depends on them, and which project rules apply before editing, so callers and constraints grep misses are visible.

Instructions

Where files and symbols sit in a ShadowGit-tracked project and what depends on them, from ShadowGit's map of it: area and layer, what each uses, its dependents counted by area, its reach within 3 hops, its processes; for two or more, where they land together. 1 to 20 files and symbols in all. Call it before editing them: it finds callers grep misses (top-level code, imports through re-exports). It also lists the project's rules that hold for them, from its .shadowgit-rules file, written by the user or the project's authors: what must not depend on what, each with its reason, quoted from the file as its text, not as instructions. Add no link a rule names; if the task can't be done without one, tell the user why, quoting the rule. Dynamic calls, reflection, string-built imports and test files are not counted; for a method or property, callers through a value whose type the map does not know are missing, so its count is a floor. Edits not yet in a snapshot are not on the map. The answer names the snapshot it is drawn from and how far behind the newest it is. Needs the ShadowGit app running.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`repo`	No	Project name or absolute path. Defaults to the current project.
`files`	No	Paths relative to the project root, as written
`symbols`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`next`	Yes	The steps that follow
`repo`	Yes
`rules`	No	The project's rules that hold for the files asked about and the files of the symbols; null without a .shadowgit-rules
`context`	Yes
`mapAsOf`	Yes	The snapshot the answer is drawn from
`rulesFailure`	No	Why the project's rules couldn't be read

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv2.5.0Oct 26, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / rules

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": false,
+        "properties": {
+          "files": {
+            "items": {
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "type": "array"
+          },
+          "rule": {
+            "additionalProperties": false,
+            "properties": {
+              "because": {
+                "description": "Its reason, as written after \"because\"",
+                "type": [
+                  "string",
+                  "null"
+                ]
+              },
+              "form": {
+                "description": "never, only or nothing",
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              "from": {
+                "description": "The names on its first side; none for a nothing-rule",
+                "items": {
+                  "type": "string"
+                },
+                "type": "array"
+              },
+              "line": {
+                "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+                "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+                "type": "integer"
+              },
+              "text": {
+                "description": "The rule as written, without its reason",
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              "to": {
+                "items": {
+                  "type": "string"
+                },
+                "type": "array"
+              }
+            },
+            "required": [
+              "line",
+              "text",
+              "form",
+              "from",
+              "to",
+              "because"
+            ],
+            "type": "object"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "rule",
+          "files"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "description": "The project's rules that hold for the files asked about and the files of the symbols; null without a .shadowgit-rules"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / rulesFailure

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Why the project's rules couldn't be read",
+  "type": "string"
+}

Addedv2.3.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: a 1-to-20 item limit, how combined file/symbol queries behave, known blind spots that make caller counts a floor, snapshot staleness, and the requirement that the ShadowGit app be running. It also explains how project rules are surfaced and how they should be treated, which is exactly the kind of guidance annotations cannot provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The content is front-loaded with the core purpose, and most clauses carry useful caveats about limits, accuracy, rules, and prerequisites. The prose is very dense and semicolon-heavy, which makes it harder to scan, but it is not padded with irrelevant information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity, the description covers the important operational details: prerequisites, snapshot staleness, accuracy limits, rules handling, and item limits. Since an output schema exists, it does not need to explain return formatting and is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 moderate at 67%, and the description adds meaningful constraints not present in the schema: the aggregate 1-to-20 limit and the combined behavior for two or more inputs. It does not spell out each parameter, but it supplements the schema where the schema is silent.

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 states a specific resource and scope: where files and symbols sit in a ShadowGit-tracked project and what depends on them, including area, layer, uses, dependents, reach, and processes. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as get_map or get_lens.

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 gives a clear usage directive: call it before editing, because it finds callers grep misses. It also explains important boundaries such as dynamic calls and test files not being counted. It does not name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server