Identify circular dependencies between modules using DFS-based cycle detection. Pinpoint cycles, affected files, and their impact to resolve architectural issues.
Detect circular dependencies between modules using DFS-based cycle detection. Returns cycles with involved files and impact assessment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo_path | No | Path or URL to the repository |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the algorithm (DFS-based detection) and what it returns, but it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, what repository states are valid, or any limits or side effects. For an analysis tool this is acceptable but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then clearly states the output. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key context well: what it detects, how it detects, and what it returns (cycles with files and impact assessment). It could be improved with notes on prerequisites or edge cases, but nothing essential is missing for a basic call.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter repo_path is already fully described in the schema as 'Path or URL to the repository', giving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level details, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Detect') and resource ('circular dependencies between modules'), and adds the method ('DFS-based cycle detection'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like analyze_coupling or detect_architectural_drift, which target different concerns.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended use case is implicitly clear: use when you need to find circular dependencies among modules. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions, leaving the routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.