Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
codegraph

codegraph

by attnstack
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

hotspots

Surface high-impact code areas via weighted PageRank across cross-file calls, helping new developers prioritize reading and flag refactoring risks.

Instructions

加权 PageRank 计算的核心函数（跨文件调用加权），用于新人上手与重构风险提示

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": "hotspots"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
top_kNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it does not say whether the analysis is read-only, how expensive the PageRank computation is, or what the result looks like (ranked list, scores, limits). The mention of weighting is the only behavioral detail, which is thin for an unannotated tool.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

A single short clause with no filler, but it reads as an internal note rather than a front-loaded definition of the tool's action and result. Brevity is achieved at the cost of completeness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For an unannotated tool with no output schema and an undocumented parameter, the description should explain the return shape and how top_k bounds it. It leaves both unaddressed, so an agent cannot call it confidently.

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

Parameters2/5

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

There is a single parameter, top_k, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or what it limits. With low coverage the description was required to compensate, and it does not.

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 names a technique (weighted PageRank, cross-file call weighting) and a purpose (onboarding and refactoring risk), which hints at what the tool computes. But it never states the actual action or output — a ranked list of hotspot functions — so the agent must infer 'hotspots' returns hotspots. It does not clearly differentiate from siblings like impact or who_calls.

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?

It offers only a vague purpose statement ('for onboarding and refactoring risk hints') rather than an actionable when-to-use rule. None of the siblings (who_calls, impact, trace, archaeology, search) are mentioned, so the agent has no basis for choosing this tool over them.

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