Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mimry

mimry

by jbacalso24
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

mimry_path

Find the relationship path between two files, symbols, or queries in local repository memory to trace how code entities connect.

Instructions

Find a relationship path between two files/symbols/queries.

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": {
      "source": "<source>",
      "target": "<target>"
    },
    "name": "mimry_path"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rootNo
sourceYes
targetYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.1

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only implies a read-only traversal via 'Find'. It does not disclose path semantics (e.g., dependency vs. call graph), directionality, performance, error conditions, or any side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the operation and the two endpoints. It is efficient but too terse to provide structure or scannable guidance, keeping it from a top score.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a 3-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description omits essential input semantics, usage context, and sibling differentiation, leaving the agent under-informed.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. It vaguely identifies source and target ('two files/symbols/queries') but gives no format, syntax, or examples, and the optional 'root' parameter is completely unmentioned.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('relationship path between two files/symbols/queries'), which is clearer than a tautology. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like mimry_related, mimry_route, or mimry_why, so an agent cannot tell them apart without further inspection.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

Provides no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. The agent is left to infer that this is the path-finding option, but nothing in the description confirms that or excludes other tools.

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