lxDIG MCP

impact_analyze

Analyze the impact of code changes by examining file dependencies to identify potential side effects and affected modules.

Instructions

Analyze impact of changes

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "impact_analyze"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`files`	No	Changed files
`changedFiles`	No	Changed files (alternate contract)
`depth`	No	Analysis depth
`profile`	No	Response profile	compact

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

C2.1/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden but fails to disclose behavioral traits. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it modifies state, or what the output format is. This is a critical gap.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

While the description is short, it lacks a clear structure and fails to front-load key information. It is under-specified rather than concise, omitting necessary details for correct usage.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what 'impact of changes' means, the context of use, or how to interpret results.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, which are already minimal. No improvement over schema.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description 'Analyze impact of changes' clearly indicates a verb and a resource, but it is vague and does not differentiate from sibling tools like arch_suggest or code_explain which also analyze aspects of code.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as arch_validate or semantic_slice. No context about prerequisites or exclusions is given.

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