Refactory

refactory_decompose

Break a monolith file into clean modules with a single automated pipeline that analyzes, extracts, fixes imports, verifies, and reports.

Instructions

Full decomposition pipeline in one call: analyze, depmap, characterize, plan, extract ALL modules, fix-imports, verify, metrics, re-export, report. The 'just do it' tool.

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": {
      "file": "<file>"
    },
    "name": "refactory_decompose"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`file`	Yes	Path to the monolith file to decompose
`outputDir`	No	Output directory (default: <dir>/lib/<basename>/ next to source)
`maxLines`	No	Max lines per module (default: 500)
`projectDir`	No	Project root for dependency mapping (optional)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0May 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description lists the pipeline steps, giving an overview of what it does, but it does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., file modifications), authentication needs, or error handling. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only provides a high-level process list.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and steps; the second reinforces the simplicity. Every word earns its place.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the complexity of a 10-step pipeline and no output schema, the description is concise but lacks details on what each step does, error handling, or expected output. It is adequate for a 'just do it' tool but not fully complete.

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 100% with descriptions for all four parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, such as usage notes or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states it is a 'full decomposition pipeline in one call' and lists all steps involved (analyze, depmap, etc.), distinguishing it from individual sibling tools like refactory_analyze or refactory_extract.

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 'The just do it tool' implies it is for running the entire pipeline at once, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus running individual steps, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. Usage guidance is implied but not explicit.

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

Deploy Server