Skip to main content
Glama

impact_surface

Pre-edit blast radius: graph callers, callees, tests, docs, git history, and memories for a symbol or path, then get a completeness/risk summary.

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. Distilled decision records for the symbol ride along as distilled_records (labeled unreviewed, capped at 2; the cap is signalled in completeness_and_caveats.truncated_sections when more exist).

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 of the checkout to scope reads to — pass a linked worktree to read its branch overlay. Defaults to the server's working directory. A path that is not a linked worktree of this repo is silently ignored: results then come from the indexed checkout, with no error.
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
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the return components (completeness/risk summary, distilled_records with a cap and truncation signal) and notes that include flags default to all. It does not mention side effects, costs, or resolution modes explicitly, but the read-only nature is inferable. Overall, it gives meaningful behavioral context beyond a bare enumeration.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and a secondary note about distilled records. It is tightly written with no fluff, and each sentence earns its place by adding distinct, valuable information.

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 a complex tool with 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently detailed. It mentions distilled_records and completeness_and_caveats.truncated_sections but does not describe the overall return structure or how parameters affect results. The lack of explanation for id/ref/query/symbol/resolution leaves significant gaps for an agent to invoke 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 coverage is only 30%, with few parameters (include, worktree, full_memories) having descriptions. The tool description does not explain any of the 10 parameters (id, ref, query, symbol, limit, resolution, allow_ambiguous, etc.) and does not clarify how they interact. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving parameter meaning ambiguous.

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 computes the 'blast radius' for a symbol or path, enumerating specific types of impact (callers/callees, tests, docs, git history, papertrail, memories) and includes a completeness/risk summary. It is distinct from sibling tools like find_callers or trace_callees by being a comprehensive pre-edit graph, and the imperative 'Run this before changing anything non-trivial' reinforces its purpose.

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 gives an explicit recommendation to run before non-trivial changes, and mentions distilled decision records, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like find_callers or git_history_for_symbol. It implies a holistic pre-edit check without stating exclusions or specific scenarios where a more targeted tool might be preferred.

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