Skip to main content
Glama
ozgurcd

gograph

by ozgurcd
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Local

gograph_boundaries

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check package imports against a boundaries.json configuration to enforce layer separation in CI gates or post-edit reviews. Returns pass state and violations.

Instructions

Refresh source analysis and check package imports against a boundaries.json configuration. The required config defaults to .gograph/boundaries.json; explicit paths must remain inside the analyzed project, and every path component plus the final regular file is read through the rooted repository boundary. Create it with gograph_boundaries_create. Read-only; no side effects. WHEN TO USE: In CI gates or post-edit reviews to enforce layer separation. NOT TO USE: For unconstrained dependency exploration (use gograph_deps or gograph_coupling). RETURNS: Structured pass state and boundary violations.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum rows per page; the byte budget may return fewer.
configNoOptional in-project path to a regular, non-linked boundary config (default .gograph/boundaries.json)
cursorNoOpaque next_cursor for the same graph snapshot and result selection.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.7.5
    • addedInput schema / properties / cursor
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Opaque next_cursor for the same graph snapshot and result selection.",
+  "maxLength": 128,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit
      Added value: +{
+  "default": 100,
+  "description": "Maximum rows per page; the byte budget may return fewer.",
+  "maximum": 200,
+  "minimum": 1,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.5.6
    • changedInput schema / properties / config / description
      Previous value: -"Optional file path to boundary constraints configuration (defaults to .gograph/boundaries.json)"New value: +"Optional in-project path to a regular, non-linked boundary config (default .gograph/boundaries.json)"
  3. Addedv1.5.4
  4. Removedv1.5.3
  5. Changed1 schema field changedv1.4.70
    • changedInput schema / properties / config / description
      Previous value: -"Optional path to configuration file (defaults to .gograph/boundaries.json)"New value: +"Optional file path to boundary constraints configuration (defaults to .gograph/boundaries.json)"
  6. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description still adds real context beyond them: it refreshes source analysis, enforces that config paths stay inside the analyzed project, and reads every path component through the rooted repository boundary. It stops short of noting cost/pagination behavior of the refresh.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by WHEN/NOT/RETURNS blocks that are easy to scan. The middle clause about path components and the rooted boundary is dense and slightly redundant with the config param description, holding it below a 5.

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?

Even with no output schema, the RETURNS line tells the agent to expect structured pass state and boundary violations, and the WHEN/NOT guidance plus config prerequisites make the tool fully callable. Nothing an agent needs is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks – the config path must be in-project, non-linked, and defaults to .gograph/boundaries.json. It adds a bit of the boundary-safety constraint rather than merely restating field descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb (check) plus resource (package imports against a boundaries config) and immediately differentiates from siblings by naming gograph_deps and gograph_coupling as the tools for unconstrained exploration. An agent can pick this tool without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit WHEN TO USE (CI gates, post-edit reviews for layer separation) and NOT TO USE (dependency exploration) sections, with the alternative siblings named by tool. Also points to gograph_boundaries_create for creating the required config, covering the setup path.

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