Skip to main content
Glama
ozgurcd

gograph

by ozgurcd
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Local

gograph_embeds

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find all Go structs that embed a named struct via anonymous fields to map how a base type is extended or estimate blast radius before modifying it.

Instructions

Find all Go structs that embed the named struct via anonymous field composition. The MCP server checks freshness before this call and refreshes in the current requested analysis mode; precise and precise_fallback graphs retry CHA/SSA after source changes. Read-only; no side effects. WHEN TO USE: When understanding how a base type is extended throughout the codebase, or before modifying a shared embedded struct to estimate blast radius. NOT TO USE: For interface implementations (use gograph_implementers); for named field type references in other structs (use gograph_usages). RETURNS: List of embedding parent struct names with package paths and file locations; empty when the struct is embedded nowhere.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum rows per page; the byte budget may return fewer.
cursorNoOpaque next_cursor for the same graph snapshot and result selection.
structYesThe exact name of the target struct to inspect embedding relationships for (e.g., 'Symbol', 'PackageNode')

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. Addedv1.5.3
  3. Removedv1.5.3
  4. Changed1 schema field changedv1.4.70
    • changedInput schema / properties / struct / description
      Previous value: -"The name of the target struct (e.g., 'Mutex')"New value: +"The exact name of the target struct to inspect embedding relationships for (e.g., 'Symbol', 'PackageNode')"
  5. 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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so 'Read-only; no side effects' is redundant. However the description adds genuinely useful disclosures beyond the annotations: the freshness check/refresh behavior before the call and the CHA/SSA retry on precise and precise_fallback graphs after source changes. These are real behavioral traits an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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-loads the purpose, then organizes WHEN/NOT/RETURNS into scannable labeled clauses. The freshness/CHA-SSA sentence is somewhat implementation-heavy for the value it adds, but the overall structure is tight and every other sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description spells out the return shape (embedding parent struct names with package paths and file locations, empty when nowhere embedded), so an agent knows exactly what to expect. Together with usage guidance and freshness semantics, the definition is complete for a 3-param read-only query.

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 limit, cursor, and struct are all documented in the schema itself. The description only restates that a named struct is the target, adding no syntax or edge-case detail (e.g., exact-name matching, pagination semantics) beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Find) and resource (Go structs that embed the named struct via anonymous field composition), and explicitly distinguishes itself from gograph_implementers and gograph_usages. An agent can identify the tool's niche 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?

Has explicit WHEN TO USE ('understanding how a base type is extended', 'estimate blast radius before modifying a shared embedded struct') and NOT TO USE sections that name the two alternative tools for adjacent questions. Nothing is left to inference.

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