Skip to main content
Glama

Estimate Impact of a Change

impact_of_change
Read-onlyIdempotent

Estimate the blast radius of changing a C# symbol before editing: count direct and transitive dependents, production impact, and return a risk level.

Instructions

Estimate the blast radius of changing a symbol: direct users, their dependents and a risk level.

Call it first, before any edit to a symbol other code names (rename, signature, default value): a compile checks names, not what consumers assume.

Returns directCount, transitiveCount (per declaration, tests included), productionImpactCount (transitive, no tests), risk, directImpact (max 20, find_usages items). risk reads productionImpactCount: 0 none, 1-4 low, 5-20 medium, over 20 high; it counts dependents, not what the change means. If one cycle dominates a high closure, 'saturation' leads the counts and risk reads the direct production fan-in.

Per kind: a type - the types referencing it, transitively; a method or operator - its caller closure through interface and abstract dispatch; a property, field, event or enum member - the code touching it (transitive = direct). A qualified method counts its contract and virtual-base callers ('viaContract').

An interface or abstract method or type adds 'implementers' per contract (what a signature change breaks; an entry's 'namesakes' splits merged contracts), and risk reads 'riskBasis'.total = closure + production implementing types (on a type direct ones only, 'indirect' lists the rest; 'riskBasis'.note: no production caller).

Trailing, moving no count: 'registration' (reached only through DI), 'serializers' (a property's serializer sites), 'attachedProperty' (a dependency property's accessor or wrapper markup users).

Ahead of the counts: a 'note' on misleading numbers (directCount 0 on a resolved symbol - DI or reflection may reach it; unresolved core references; no production project; 'not_found': risk 'none' measures nothing, 'nearest' gives a close name; a private member), 'collision' (a same-named other kind, not counted) and 'namesakes' (types sharing the name, counted as one union).

Read-only. symbol is case-sensitive, resolved as in find_usages: a type by simple name, a member bare (one kind) or 'Type.Member'; for a constructor ('Type.Type') use find_usages.

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": {
      "sessionId": "<sessionId>",
      "symbol": "<symbol>"
    },
    "name": "impact_of_change"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
symbolYesThe exact (case-sensitive) type, method, property, field, event, enum-member or operator (metadata) name to assess - or the qualified Type.Member form for a member.
sessionIdYesThe session_id returned by analyze_solution. Also takes an absolute .sln/.slnx/.slnf path, analyzed on first use.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.5.46514
    • changedInput schema / properties / symbol / description
      Previous value: -"The exact (case-sensitive) type, method, property, field, event or enum-member name to assess - or the qualified Type.Member form for a member."New value: +"The exact (case-sensitive) type, method, property, field, event, enum-member or operator (metadata) name to assess - or the qualified Type.Member form for a member."
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.5.46513
    • changedInput schema / properties / sessionId / description
      Previous value: -"The session_id returned by analyze_solution."New value: +"The session_id returned by analyze_solution. Also takes an absolute .sln/.slnx/.slnf path, analyzed on first use."
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only cover the read-only/idempotent profile, and the description goes far beyond them: it enumerates return fields, gives the exact risk thresholds (0/1-4/5-20/>20), explains saturation on cyclic closures, per-kind transitive semantics, the implementers/riskBasis extension, and trailing fields that do not affect counts. It even warns that risk counts dependents, not change meaning.

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 action and the when-to-use rule are correctly front-loaded and every sentence carries information, but the middle sections are dense fragments with opaque lead-ins like 'Trailing, moving no count' and 'Ahead of the counts' that force re-reading. Information density is high, readability is not.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return contract, and it does: named fields, risk mapping, per-symbol-kind behavior, and the note/collision/namesakes caveats including the not_found case. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description still adds resolution semantics beyond the schema — symbol is resolved exactly as in find_usages, a type by simple name, a member bare or as 'Type.Member', and constructors must use find_usages instead. sessionId is left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Estimate the blast radius of changing a symbol: direct users, their dependents and a risk level.' It names the exact outputs and distinguishes itself from find_usages (which it defers to for constructors) and from generic graph tools like call_graph.

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?

Explicit when-to-use: 'Call it first, before any edit to a symbol other code names (rename, signature, default value)', with the rationale (a compile checks names, not what consumers assume). It also names the alternative for the one unsupported case: constructors go to find_usages.

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