Skip to main content
Glama
giancarloerra

SocratiCode

by giancarloerra
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

codebase_impact

Determine the code impact of a file or symbol by listing dependent files and functions that could break, helping you assess risk before refactoring or deleting code.

Instructions

Impact Analysis — return the BLAST RADIUS for a file or symbol. Lists every file (and, where helpful, function) that could break if you change the target. Polymorphic on target: a path-like string ('src/foo.ts') triggers file-mode; a name-like string ('validateUser') triggers symbol-mode. Use this BEFORE refactoring, renaming, or deleting code to know what depends on it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileNoOptional file path to disambiguate the target symbol.
depthNoHow many hops back to walk (default 3, max 10).
targetNoTarget file path (relative) OR symbol name.
symbolIdNoExact symbol ID (e.g. 'src/foo.ts::validateUser#10') to disambiguate.
projectPathNoAbsolute path to the project directory.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.13.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / file
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional file path to disambiguate the target symbol.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / symbolId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Exact symbol ID (e.g. 'src/foo.ts::validateUser#10') to disambiguate.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "target"
-]
  2. Addedv1.8.2
  3. Removedv1.8.1
  4. Addedv1.7.2

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It accurately describes the output (a list of files and optionally functions) and the polymorphic handling of the target parameter. It does not mention potential limitations or error behaviors, but for a read-only analysis tool, the transparency is adequate.

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 concise and well-structured. It opens with a clear purpose statement, then provides a brief output description, explains polymorphism in a single sentence, and closes with a practical usage example. Every sentence contributes value without unnecessary filler.

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?

The description is complete enough for the tool's complexity. It explains the output format, the polymorphic input behavior, and the intended use case. Since there is no output schema, the description adequately fills that gap. It does not cover edge cases like handling ambiguous symbols, but given the available context, it is sufficiently complete.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The schema already provides complete per-parameter descriptions with 100% coverage, which would normally set a baseline of 3. The tool description adds meaningful clarification about the polymorphic nature of the 'target' parameter (path-like vs name-like strings), which goes beyond the schema. This extra semantic context justifies a score above baseline.

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 the tool's purpose: performing impact analysis to find the blast radius for a file or symbol. It explicitly mentions listing affected files and functions, and explains the polymorphic behavior, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 provides a clear usage guideline: 'Use this BEFORE refactoring, renaming, or deleting code to know what depends on it.' This indicates when the tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly compare or contrast with alternative tools from the sibling list, so it falls slightly short of full guidance.

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