Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gograph

gograph

by ozgurcd
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Local

gograph_embeds

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find all Go structs that embed a named struct through anonymous fields, so you can assess extension points and estimate blast radius before changing shared base types.

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

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.
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')
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. 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"
+}
  3. Addedv1.5.3
  4. Removedv1.5.3
  5. 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')"
  6. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so "Read-only; no side effects" adds nothing. However, the description discloses non-obvious server behavior the annotations do not: freshness is checked and refreshed in the requested analysis mode, and precise/precise_fallback graphs retry CHA/SSA after source changes, which explains otherwise puzzling latency or result shifts.

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 one-line purpose, then segments WHEN TO USE, NOT TO USE, and RETURNS, so each block is scannable. The freshness/CHA/SSA sentence is jargon-dense but conveys real behavior; the "Read-only; no side effects" clause duplicates annotations and is the only clearly wasted phrase.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the RETURNS block correctly takes on return-shape duty by naming parent struct names, package paths, and file locations, plus the empty-result contract. Minor gap: it does not say whether embedding is reported only for direct parents or followed transitively through nested embeddings, which matters for blast-radius use.

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 root, limit, cursor, struct, intention, and session_id are all documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g., exact-name matching vs qualified names, or how pagination interacts with embedding results), so the 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 and resource ("Find all Go structs that embed the named struct via anonymous field composition") and immediately narrows the mechanism to anonymous field composition, which separates it from field-reference and interface queries. An agent can distinguish it from gograph_implementers and gograph_usages without opening either 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 covers both exploratory (understanding how a base type is extended) and pre-mutation (blast radius before modifying a shared struct) cases. The NOT TO USE block names the correct alternatives by tool name and the exact condition that selects each.

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