FrameIO MCP Server

analyze_module

Analyze a module to detect issues, unused code, missing relationships, and best practice violations. Run specific checks or all by default for targeted results.

Instructions

Analyze module for issues, unused code, missing relationships, and best practice violations

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": {
      "modulePath": "<modulePath>"
    },
    "name": "analyze_module"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`checks`	No	Specific checks to run (optional, runs all by default)
`modulePath`	Yes	Path to module directory (relative to project root)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 4, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what kind of report it returns, whether it modifies files, or how results are presented. The word 'analyze' hints at non-destructive behavior, but this is not explicit.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that names the action and resource before listing specifics. It is concise and free of filler, though the word 'issues' is somewhat redundant with the enumerated categories.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what the agent receives after calling the tool and clarify side effects or limitations. It does neither, leaving the agent to guess about return format, check names, and whether the operation is safe to run.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both modulePath and checks. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which is acceptable given full coverage, but it also does not enrich the meaning of the 'checks' values.

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 ('Analyze') and resource ('module') and enumerates concrete focus areas: issues, unused code, missing relationships, and best practice violations. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool validate_module, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided about when to use analyze_module versus validate_module, fix_module, or other siblings. The description implies the tool is for analysis but does not state conditions, exclusions, or alternatives.

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