SRC (Structured Repo Context)

Analyze change impact

analyze_impact

Read-onlyIdempotent

Identify all files impacted by your changed files via dependency graph and reverse transitive closure, so you can assess blast radius and avoid unintended breakage.

Instructions

Read-only blast-radius analysis for changed files using the project dependency graph and reverse transitive closure.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`directory`	No	Project root	.
`max_files`	No	Maximum graph files
`changed_files`	Yes	Changed project-relative files

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No
`meta`	Yes
`error`	No
`message`	No
`success`	Yes
`schema_version`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv2.0.0Sep 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: it reveals the tool computes blast radius via dependency graph traversal and reverse transitive closure, which helps the agent anticipate the analysis semantics.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence communicates scope, safety, purpose, and method with no filler. Every part of the description earns its place.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, fully documented parameters, and strong safety annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke this tool correctly. It conveys the core concept, input domain, and read-only nature without needing additional explanation.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description reinforces the role of 'changed_files' in the impact analysis, but does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action ('blast-radius analysis'), a well-defined input scope ('changed files'), and the underlying method ('project dependency graph and reverse transitive closure'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_dependency_graph or analyze_file.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The phrase 'for changed files' establishes a clear intended context: use this when assessing the impact of modified files. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficiently clear from the description.

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