Skip to main content
Glama
mariusei

Scantool - File Scanner MCP

by mariusei
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Find Divergence

find_divergence

Detect functions that break a call pattern their siblings follow, revealing divergence in directory codebases. Use as a review hint to spot anomalies.

Instructions

Peer divergence across a directory: functions that break a call pattern their siblings follow (peers calling X also call Y, this one does not). A review hint, not a verified bug list; silent on a consistent codebase, and that silence is the answer. In your shell: sct --help (if sct is not on PATH, "/app/.venv/bin/python" -m scantool.cli replaces sct).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
directoryYesRoot directory to audit
max_findingsNoCap on the number of findings shown (default: 20)
respect_gitignoreNoRespect .gitignore patterns (default: True)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv0.20.1
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / directory / description
      Added value: +"Root directory to audit"
    • addedInput schema / properties / max_findings / description
      Added value: +"Cap on the number of findings shown (default: 20)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / respect_gitignore / description
      Added value: +"Respect .gitignore patterns (default: True)"
  2. First observedv0.19.4

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it discloses that results are review hints, not verified bugs, and explains the meaning of a silent result. It does not mention side effects, permissions, or failure behavior, but the read-only audit nature is strongly implied.

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?

The description is compact and front-loads the core concept before the caveat and shell usage. The shell command sentence is arguably extra but still useful and does not bloat the description significantly.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool's purpose, caveats, and silent-result behavior are covered, but there is no output schema and the description does not explain the structure of the findings. It says 'findings' are capped, but an agent would still wonder what a finding includes or how it is formatted.

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?

All three parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter-level details. The shell command in the description is useful context but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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?

The description clearly defines the tool's purpose with a concrete example of peer divergence ('peers calling X also call Y, this one does not') and immediately qualifies it as a review hint. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like scan_directory or callers, so it misses the top score.

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 this is a heuristic review tool rather than a definitive bug detector, and notes that silence on a consistent codebase is meaningful. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this over sibling tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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