Statically inspects ggraph code to separate node and edge mappings, validate optional schemas, and analyze package/version context without executing R code.
Statically inspect ggraph calls, separate node/edge mappings, and optional schemas.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source | Yes | ||
| renv_lock | No | ||
| edge_schema | No | ||
| node_schema | No | ||
| package_versions | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The word 'statically' adds a useful behavioral fact (no code execution), but the description says nothing about what the analysis produces, how renv_lock or package_versions influence behavior, or what schemas are validated against.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, but the brevity comes at the cost of the parameter detail needed elsewhere.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
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, with five undocumented parameters (0% coverage), an open-world read-only analysis tool, and no mention of how renv_lock/package_versions change results, the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It only vaguely alludes to node/edge schemas and says nothing about 'source' (the required code input), 'renv_lock', or 'package_versions'. Five parameters with no semantic explanation is a significant gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('statically inspect') and resource ('ggraph calls'), and names the sub-analyses (node/edge mappings, optional schemas). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling analyze_ggplot_code by naming ggraph, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus analyze_ggplot_code, analyze_ggplotly_compatibility, or get_visualization_docs. No prerequisites, no exclusions, nothing that helps an agent choose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.