Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Gravitas-Core-MCP

Gravitas-Core-MCP

by ahmed-coding
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

project_get_map

Recursively explore project directory structure with configurable depth and file count limits, filtering out irrelevant noise to map codebase organization.

Instructions

Recursive project structure with noise filtering.

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": "project_get_map"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
max_depthNo
max_entriesNo
project_rootNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions recursion and noise filtering but does not explain side effects, data scope, or whether it is read-only. Insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

Extremely short (6 words), but this under-specification is not conciseness; it omits critical information. The description does not earn its place as it conveys little value.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given 3 parameters with no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return format, filtering behavior, or parameter constraints, leaving an agent uninformed about how to use the tool effectively.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to parameters. 'max_depth', 'max_entries', and 'project_root' are named but not explained in context. The tool fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states it retrieves a recursive project structure with noise filtering, which gives a general idea. However, 'noise filtering' is ambiguous and doesn't specify what noise is. It is not a tautology, but lacks precision for clear purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when or when not to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings are diverse, but the description does not distinguish usage context or prerequisites.

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