Map module relationships by listing what a file imports and what modules rely on it. Trace dependencies across the entire codebase to understand import structure and usage.
Show what a module imports and what imports it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| module | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, but it only discloses the bidirectionality of the query. It says nothing about what is returned (file paths, module names, nested edges), what happens when the module is unresolvable, or any limits on result size.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately short, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing detail noted elsewhere.
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 one-parameter query tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should pin down the identifier format and the shape of the result. Neither is covered, so an agent can call it but cannot predict or validate the outcome.
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?
Schema coverage is 0% and the single parameter is bare, so the description must clarify whether 'module' means a name, a dotted path, or a file path. It provides none of that, leaving a real ambiguity for a required parameter.
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?
States a specific resource (a module) and a specific relationship (imports in both directions), which is enough for an agent to understand the operation. It stops short of naming how it differs from the analogous siblings callers_of and callees_of, which cover the same shape of relationship at a different granularity.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus callers_of or callees_of, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer the module-level vs symbol-level distinction from the tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.