Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
KrakenMCP

KrakenMCP

by gateniomer
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

explain

Map how a specific area of the codebase works in a read-only one-page summary, helping you understand structure before planning or changing code.

Instructions

One-page map of how part of the codebase works (read-only).

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": {
      "area": "<area>"
    },
    "name": "explain"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cwdNoRepository path
areaYes
agentNo
modelNo
effortNo
sessionNoRun group labeldefault

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.1.3

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully declares read-only behavior and hints at a bounded 'one-page' output, but it says nothing about whether an external agent/model is invoked, which files or paths are read, latency, cost, or side effects implied by the agent, model, and effort parameters.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. Its brevity is appropriate in form but leaves it underspecified for a tool with six parameters and execution-related options.

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 tool with six parameters, a required but undocumented 'area', agent/model/effort controls, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine what input 'area' expects or how the execution options alter behavior.

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 33%, and the required 'area' parameter has no description in either the schema or the tool description. The agent, model, and effort parameters are also undocumented, while 'cwd' and 'session' receive only minimal schema descriptions; the tool description adds no parameter guidance whatsoever.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies the resource — a portion of the codebase — and the intended output form, a one-page map, plus a read-only claim. However, the verb is nominal and vague ('map'), and it offers no differentiation from siblings such as think, plan, or review.

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?

There is only an implied use case: explaining part of the codebase. The description does not say when to choose this over siblings like think, plan, review, or execute, nor does it state any preconditions or exclusions.

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