Skip to main content
Glama

gograph_endpoint

Read-onlyIdempotent

Audit an HTTP endpoint's full execution path: handler, downstream call chain, SQL queries, and env vars. Query by route pattern or handler name.

Instructions

Build a full vertical slice for one HTTP route: the matched handler symbol, a BFS call chain downstream (default depth 5), all SQL queries emitted in that chain, and all env vars read. Requires .gograph/graph.json — run gograph build . first. Read-only; no side effects. LIMITATION: Nested route-group prefixes (e.g. Gin/Echo/Chi Group()) are lost at the static AST level. Always query by the final route path suffix or, ideally, by the handler function symbol name (e.g., 'CreateUser'). WHEN TO USE: When auditing what an API endpoint does end-to-end — its downstream dependencies, database queries, and configuration reads. NOT TO USE: For listing all routes (use gograph_routes first to find the pattern); for raw handler source code only (use gograph_source). RETURNS: Array of endpoint slices with route, handler, call chain, SQL, and env fields; found:false with a suggestion when the query does not match any route. query accepts route pattern ("POST /api/users"), path fragment ("/users"), or handler name. depth controls call-chain BFS depth (default: 5).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
depthNoBFS depth for call chain traversal (default: 5)
queryYesRoute pattern ("POST /api/users"), final path suffix ("POST /users"), or handler symbol name ("CreateUser"). NOTE: Nested route-group prefixes are lost statically.
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds prerequisite (run `gograph build .`), limitation about nested route-group prefixes, and details on return format including found:false case. This goes beyond annotations by explaining required setup and edge cases.

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?

Description is well-structured with a clear lead sentence, followed by details, limitations, when-to-use, and returns. While it is somewhat verbose, every sentence provides essential context and there is no redundancy. A 5 would be tighter, but this is effective.

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?

Given no output schema but 2 simple params, the description fully explains the return value (array of endpoint slices, found:false case with suggestion) and all operational details (prerequisites, depth default). No gaps remain for an agent to infer behavior.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, and description adds examples and important notes for the 'query' parameter (accepts route pattern, path suffix, or handler name) and clarifies default for 'depth'. This adds value beyond the schema definitions.

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?

Description clearly states it builds a full vertical slice for one HTTP route, listing specific outputs (handler, call chain, SQL, env vars). Distinguishes from siblings by naming gograph_routes and gograph_source as alternatives for different use cases.

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?

Explicitly provides WHEN TO USE (auditing endpoint end-to-end) and NOT TO USE sections with direct references to sibling tools (gograph_routes, gograph_source), giving clear guidance on when to choose alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ozgurcd/gograph'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server