Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
codegraph

codegraph

by attnstack
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

impact

Analyze reverse call closures for a symbol, excluding tests and generated code, to rank risk and show evidence-backed call chains and dynamic call sites.

Instructions

影响面分析：反向调用闭包（排除测试/生成代码），按风险分数排序，每个节点附完整证据调用链与动态调用点

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "symbol": "<symbol>"
    },
    "name": "impact"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
depthNo闭包深度上限，默认 8
symbolYes
max_nodesNo节点数上限，默认 500

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses reverse closure traversal, exclusion of test/generated code, risk-score ordering, and per-node evidence including dynamic call sites. It still omits read-only safety and performance/limit behavior beyond what the schema implies.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single dense sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by scope, sorting, and output details. Every phrase contributes information with no filler.

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 complex analysis tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the traversal scope, filtering, ordering, and return content. It is nearly complete, though explicit input expectations for the required symbol parameter remain unstated.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 67%: depth and max_nodes are documented in the schema, while symbol has no schema description. The tool description implies symbol is the analysis target but adds no syntax or format guidance for it, so parameter semantics are adequate but not enriched.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: impact analysis via reverse call closure, with risk sorting and evidence chains. It implies a distinct role from sibling tools like who_calls, but does not explicitly name or differentiate against them.

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?

The phrase 'impact analysis' and the exclusion of test/generated code imply when the tool is useful, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over who_calls, trace, or archaeology. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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