Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gograph

gograph

by ozgurcd
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Local

gograph_boundaries_create

Generates a baseline architecture boundary config from a repository's current package imports so you can adopt boundary checks, then review and tighten the generated rules.

Instructions

Create a baseline architecture boundary configuration from the repository's current package imports. Defaults to .gograph/boundaries.json under the graph root, uses repository-rooted regular-file creation, and refuses linked paths or overwrite. Mutating and non-idempotent; no network access. WHEN TO USE: Once when adopting boundary checks in an existing repository, then review and tighten the generated rules. NOT TO USE: To verify an existing configuration (use gograph_boundaries). RETURNS: The written config path or an error when the path is unsafe or already exists.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rootNoAbsolute path of the checkout you are working in (your cwd or git worktree). Must be this server's repository or one of its git worktrees; the answer then comes from that checkout's own graph. A path elsewhere is refused. Alias: cwd. Omit only when the configured checkout is the one you mean.
configNoOptional in-project output path, absolute or repository-relative; linked components and existing entries are refused (default .gograph/boundaries.json)
intentionNoTechnical rationale, required for analytical calls selecting an active session.
session_idNoCaller selector returned by session_create. Omission means an independent caller; never inherits server environment or another caller's session.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.7.18
    • addedInput schema / properties / intention
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Technical rationale, required for analytical calls selecting an active session.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / root
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Absolute path of the checkout you are working in (your cwd or git worktree). Must be this server's repository or one of its git worktrees; the answer then comes from that checkout's own graph. A path elsewhere is refused. Alias: cwd. Omit only when the configured checkout is the one you mean.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / session_id
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Caller selector returned by session_create. Omission means an independent caller; never inherits server environment or another caller's session.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.5.6
    • changedInput schema / properties / config / description
      Previous value: -"Optional repository-relative output path (default .gograph/boundaries.json)"New value: +"Optional in-project output path, absolute or repository-relative; linked components and existing entries are refused (default .gograph/boundaries.json)"
  3. Addedv1.5.4
  4. Removedv1.5.3
  5. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so 'Mutating and non-idempotent; no network access' largely restates them. The value-add is the disclosed refusal behavior — repository-rooted regular-file creation that rejects linked paths and refuses to overwrite an existing config — which tells the agent how failure modes arise.

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 statement of purpose and default path, followed by labeled WHEN TO USE / NOT TO USE / RETURNS blocks that are easy to scan. There is minor redundancy with the schema on the default path and refusal rules, but no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and the RETURNS line supplies the return contract (written config path, or an error when the path is unsafe or already exists). Combined with the adoption workflow guidance, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and interpret the result.

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 all four parameters are already documented. The description adds only the default config path and the refusal rule for the output path, both of which are already present in the 'config' schema text, so it does not meaningfully exceed the schema baseline.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Create a baseline architecture boundary configuration from the repository's current package imports') and immediately pins down the default output location, so an agent knows exactly what artifact is produced and where it lands.

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 ('Once when adopting boundary checks in an existing repository, then review and tighten the generated rules') and NOT TO USE with a named alternative ('use gograph_boundaries' for verification), which cleanly separates it from the sibling tool with a nearly identical name.

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