Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
codegraph

codegraph

by attnstack
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

dead_code

Lists orphan functions that have no static callers and are not public API, flagging candidates for manual dynamic-call review before deletion.

Instructions

孤儿函数清单：无静态调用者且非对外 API（TS 非导出 / Python 单下划线私有），删除前需人工确认动态调用

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": "dead_code"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.2

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important limitations: the analysis is static-only, excludes external API surfaces, and requires manual verification of dynamic calls. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe the return format.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the resource ('孤儿函数清单') and follows with criteria and caveat. It is efficient, though the parenthetical language could be slightly clearer for non-Chinese readers.

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 simple zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the core definition and an important caveat about dynamic calls. It could be more complete by mentioning what the returned list contains, but it is adequate overall.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema baseline is 4. The description appropriately adds no parameter information because none exists.

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 (orphan function list) and defines the exact criteria: no static callers and not an external API (TS non-exported / Python single-underscore private). This distinguishes it from general search or call-graph tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied (finding dead code) and a caution is given ('manual confirmation of dynamic calls required before deletion'), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like impact, trace, or who_calls.

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