Skip to main content
Glama
jamesdsizemore

rush

by jamesdsizemore
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

rush_dead

Identify unused Python and JavaScript/TypeScript code in a given path using Vulture or Knip engines; returns 'skipped' status if engines are missing.

Instructions

Find unused Python and JS/TS code at . Uses vulture or knip; missing engines return status='skipped'.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rawNo
toolNo
engineNo
statusNo
metricsNo
summaryNo
findingsNo
metadataNo
artifactsNo
duration_msNo
review_kindNo
engine_versionNo
review_providerNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.2
    • changedOutput schema / properties / metrics / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "additionalProperties": {
-      "anyOf": [
-        {
-          "type": "integer"
-        },
-        {
-          "type": "number"
-        },
-        {
-          "type": "string"
-        }
-      ]
-    },
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "additionalProperties": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
  2. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It exceeds a bare purpose statement by disclosing the engine strategy ('Uses vulture or knip') and the edge-case fallback ('missing engines return status='skipped''). It stops short of explicitly confirming the analysis is non-destructive, though the verb 'Find' strongly implies read-only.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and parameter role; the second adds tooling and fallback behavior. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, supported languages, engine selection, and the missing-engine fallback. The main gap is the absence of an explicit non-destructive/read-only statement, which matters in a family where analysis tools could conceivably also mutate code.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that <path> is the scan target for dead-code detection, but it leaves path semantics open: file vs. directory, recursion behavior, and how vulture and knip interpret the path differently.

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 states a specific verb ('Find') with a precise resource ('unused Python and JS/TS code') and a location scope ('at <path>'). The language-specific scope distinguishes it from adjacent siblings like rush_dead_asset (unused assets vs. code) and from quality tools like rush_lint or rush_complexity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool — when unused Python or JS/TS code needs to be identified at a given path. However, it gives no explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives, which is a meaningful gap given a sibling list of 80+ tools including the closely related rush_dead_asset.

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