Skip to main content
Glama

impact_surface

Assess the blast radius of a code change by analyzing callers, tests, docs, git history, papertrail, and memories. Get a completeness and risk summary before making non-trivial edits.

Instructions

Pre-edit blast radius for a symbol or path: graph callers/callees, tests, docs, git history, tracker papertrail, and the repo memories crossing it, with a completeness / risk summary. Run this before changing anything non-trivial.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNo
refNo
limitNo
queryNo
symbolNo
includeNoWhat to include — `tests`, `docs`, `git`, `papertrail`, `text_fallback`, `memories`, ALL on by default (impact's value is the bundled evidence). Omit to keep them; pass an explicit list to narrow, e.g. `["git"]` for git history only. `git` bundles both the recent commits touching the symbol's file and the files that historically co-changed with it (the windowed change-coupling section).
worktreeNoAbsolute path to a linked git worktree you're working in; serves that worktree's branch overlay over the indexed checkout. Omit (or pass an unrelated path) for the indexed checkout.
resolutionNo
full_memoriesNoReturn full memory bodies + every binding + call paths instead of the default compact, scannable per-memory headers (#37). To expand ONE memory by id (e.g. the `memory_id` from a `surface="summary"` compact attachment), call `memory_show`; full detail for a symbol/path is also reachable via `memory_for_symbol` / `memory_for_path` / `memory_for_call_path`.
allow_ambiguousNo
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool is a 'pre-edit blast radius' analysis, implying a read-only operation with no destructive side effects. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as rate limits, output format, or any side effects beyond reading.

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?

The description is concise at two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then listing components. It is efficient but could benefit from a more structured breakdown of parameters or outputs.

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?

With 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main use case and output summary but lacks sufficient detail on parameter usage and what the returned data looks like. It is adequate for understanding the purpose but not for confident invocation without additional documentation.

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 coverage is only 30%, and the description adds minimal parameter guidance beyond the schema's existing descriptions. For example, it explains the 'include' parameter's default and narrowing behavior, but does not describe the other 7 parameters (id, ref, limit, query, symbol, resolution, allow_ambiguous) which lack descriptions in the schema. The description fails to compensate for this low coverage.

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 the tool's purpose: analyzing blast radius before edits by graph callers/callees, tests, docs, git history, tracker papertrail, and repo memories. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like find_callers or git_history_for_symbol by bundling all these aspects into a single pre-edit check.

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 'Run this before changing anything non-trivial', indicating when to use. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, but the context of sibling tools implies that for specific analyses one would use individual tools.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/cq27-dev/rag-rat'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server