Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gograph

gograph

by ozgurcd
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Local

gograph_capabilities

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists the running server version, all available MCP tools, their purposes, and recommended agent workflows to orient before issuing analytical queries.

Instructions

List the running gograph server version, all available MCP tools, their purposes, and recommended agent workflows. Once the project-scoped MCP server has started, this tool has no additional graph-state prerequisite. Read-only; no side effects. WHEN TO USE: Call once per session to record the analysis instrument and orient before issuing analytical queries. NOT TO USE: Do not repeat after capabilities are cached in context. RETURNS: Structured JSON with version, every registered tool name, one-line purposes, recommended workflow sequences, and known static-analysis limitations.

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.
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. Addedv1.5.4
  3. Removedv1.5.3
  4. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description nonetheless adds the non-obvious prerequisite that no graph state is needed once the server is up, plus the caching guidance. It partially restates the read-only/no-side-effects claim already in annotations, and does not discuss cost or size of the returned catalog, which keeps it below a 5.

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 labeled WHEN TO USE / NOT TO USE / RETURNS blocks that scan well. Minor waste: 'Read-only; no side effects' duplicates the annotations, and RETURNS restates the version/tool-list already given in sentence one.

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?

For a zero-required-parameter orientation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape (version, tool names, one-line purposes, workflow sequences, known limitations), the prerequisite, and the calling cadence. Nothing an agent needs before calling is missing.

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% with all three optional parameters fully documented in-schema (root, intention, session_id), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description says nothing about these parameters — notably it omits that root scopes the answer to a checkout — but the schema already carries that meaning.

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 and resource set: lists the server version, every registered MCP tool, their purposes, and recommended workflows. This is clearly a meta/introspection tool, which no sibling (gograph_callers, gograph_explain, etc.) duplicates, so an agent can place it immediately.

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?

Provides explicit WHEN TO USE (once per session to record the instrument and orient before analytical queries) and NOT TO USE (do not repeat after capabilities are cached) sections, plus a stated prerequisite — the project-scoped server must have started. Timing and exclusion are both unambiguous.

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