Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
rag-rat

rag-rat

by cq27-dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

compare_graph_to_text

Cross-check symbol caller edges against regex text search to surface missed call sites and flag likely false edges, revealing graph coverage gaps.

Instructions

Cross-check a symbol's graph caller edges against a regex text search of indexed source — surfaces call sites the tree-sitter graph missed and flags likely false edges. Use when you suspect graph coverage gaps.

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": {
      "pattern": "<pattern>"
    },
    "name": "compare_graph_to_text"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNo
refNo
limitNo
symbolNo
includeNoWhat to include: `tests` (on by default); `references`, `unresolved`, `macros`, `common_methods` (off by default). Omit to keep defaults; an explicit list is the exact on-set.
patternYes
edge_kindsNo
resolutionNo
allow_ambiguousNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.18.0
    • changedInput schema / $defs / McpGraphEdgeKind / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "calls_name",
-  "constructs",
-  "dispatches",
-  "uses_macro",
-  "references_type",
-  "imports",
-  "exports",
-  "contains",
-  "implements"
-]New value: +[
+  "calls_name",
+  "constructs",
+  "uses_operator",
+  "uses_precedence_group",
+  "dispatches",
+  "uses_macro",
+  "references_type",
+  "imports",
+  "exports",
+  "contains",
+  "implements"
+]
  2. First observedv0.9.0-3b4b4b7

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's action (cross-checking, surfacing, flagging) but does not clarify side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or whether it is a read-only operation. The description is partially informative but lacks important behavioral context.

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 composed of two concise, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence captures the core functionality, and the second provides usage guidance. No redundant or filler content.

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 tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema), the description covers only the core concept and usage hint. It omits details about return format, parameter meanings, and prerequisites, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 11%, meaning the description should compensate by explaining key parameters. However, the description does not mention any parameters except implicitly 'regex text search' (which relates to 'pattern'). Parameters like 'symbol', 'include', 'edge_kinds' remain unexplained, relying on the sparse schema descriptions.

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 uses specific verbs ('cross-check', 'surfaces', 'flags') and resources ('graph caller edges', 'regex text search of indexed source'), clearly distinguishing the tool from siblings like compare_graph_to_scip. The purpose is immediately clear: compare graph edges to text search to find missed call sites and false edges.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly advises using the tool 'when you suspect graph coverage gaps', providing a clear use case. However, it does not mention when not to use or suggest alternatives like compare_graph_to_scip, which could be a similar tool for SCIP-based comparison.

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