mcp-skylos

by duriantaco

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Check architecture

architecture_check

Read-only

Analyze a project's code architecture to detect module coupling, cohesion, and circular dependency issues.

Instructions

Report architecture findings for a project: module coupling, cohesion and circular dependencies.

Returns JSON with the architecture findings and _run_id. Read-only and local. Use quality_check for function-level issues.

Defect and Review records remain complete. Advice is grouped by default; expand_advice=True includes every Advice record. Read _result_uri for the complete saved result without rescanning.

Requires SKYLOS_API_KEY: this tool returns an authentication error unless the MCP server is started with SKYLOS_API_KEY set. Without a key only analyze works (5 calls/day). The local CLI needs no key: skylos verify <file> and skylos agent install-hooks.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`path`	Yes	Directory or file to scan. A relative path resolves against the MCP server's working directory.
`confidence`	No	Minimum confidence (0-100) for dead-code findings. Higher values report fewer, surer candidates; 60 is the CLI default.
`expand_advice`	No	Include every Advice record instead of rule-group counts; complete results are always available through _result_uri.
`exclude_folders`	No	Folder names to skip, e.g. ["migrations", "scripts"]. When given, this list replaces the default excludes (node_modules, .venv, build, dist and similar); omit it to keep the defaults.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv4.49.0Oct 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations cover read-only/local safety, but the description goes further: it discloses the authentication failure mode, the degraded no-key quota (analyze only, 5 calls/day), the default grouping of Advice records, and that _result_uri allows retrieving saved results without rescanning.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and alternative, then prerequisites, which is a sensible order. However, the sentence 'Defect and Review records remain complete' is cryptic and unexplained, and the advice/_result_uri material is somewhat bolted on.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a read-only tool with an output schema, the description supplies everything extra an agent needs: auth requirement, failure behavior, result-retrieval path, and sibling routing. Nothing required to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and the description largely restates it (expand_advice grouping, _result_uri availability) rather than adding new meaning. It says nothing about path resolution or confidence semantics beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource plus the exact analysis surface: module coupling, cohesion, and circular dependencies. It explicitly contrasts with quality_check ('function-level issues'), so an agent can separate the two siblings without opening schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it ('Use quality_check for function-level issues'), and adds a hard prerequisite: SKYLOS_API_KEY must be set or the call fails. It even notes the no-key CLI fallback, which is unusually actionable routing guidance.

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

Deploy Server