Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
solflow-mcp

solflow-mcp

by fuzious
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

get_flow

Read-onlyIdempotent

Generates an indented Solidity execution call tree from one entry point, showing modifiers, internal/external calls, resolved dispatch, builtins, and unresolved calls with reasons.

Instructions

Show the full execution call tree for one entry point as an indented text tree: modifiers, internal/library/external calls (with the parent line that makes each call), inherited/virtual dispatch resolved through C3, builtins used (require, keccak256, ...), dependency calls not followed, and UNRESOLVED calls with the reason.

Args:
    repo_path: Project root.
    entry_point: "Contract.fn(type1,type2)", "Contract.fn", or bare "fn" if unique.
    max_depth: Limit tree depth (root = 0). Omit for the full tree.
    include_source: Inline each function's source (line-numbered) the first
        time it appears. Great for reading a flow end-to-end in one call.
    collapse_repeats: Print a function's subtree only once; later occurrences
        say "(subtree already shown above)". Keeps output small.
    max_chars: Output size cap.

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": {
      "repo_path": "<repo_path>",
      "entry_point": "<entry_point>"
    },
    "name": "get_flow"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
max_charsNo
max_depthNo
repo_pathYes
entry_pointYes
include_sourceNo
collapse_repeatsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, closed-world semantics, yet the description adds substantial context: the exact output shape, that dispatch is resolved via C3, that dependency calls are deliberately not followed, that unresolved calls are annotated with reasons, and that max_chars/collapse_repeats control output size. What it omits is failure behavior (invalid or ambiguous entry point, unanalyzed repo).

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 summary sentence is front-loaded and the Args block maps cleanly to parameters. A few clauses are promotional rather than informative ("Great for reading a flow end-to-end in one call", "Keeps output small"), though they do convey intent. The opening sentence is dense but every listed element earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the return-value burden by describing the tree's contents and inline-source behavior. All six parameters are covered. The remaining gap is edge-case behavior — ambiguous entry points, empty trees, and error conditions — for a tool that is otherwise well specified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does: entry_point formats are given with examples and the "bare fn if unique" rule, max_depth is anchored (root = 0, omit for full), and include_source and collapse_repeats are explained in terms of their effect on output, not just their names. Every one of the six parameters gains meaning beyond its title.

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?

"Show the full execution call tree for one entry point as an indented text tree" is a specific verb, resource, and output form. The enumeration of what the tree contains (modifiers, resolved dispatch, builtins, unresolved calls with reasons) makes the tool's identity unmistakable. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like find_paths_to or get_function_source, so it stops 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 Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied through hints like "Great for reading a flow end-to-end in one call" and "Omit for the full tree," and the accepted entry_point formats are spelled out. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over sibling tools such as find_paths_to or get_function_source, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., whether the repo must be analyzed first).

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