Skip to main content
Glama

gograph_endpoint

Read-onlyIdempotent

Trace an HTTP endpoint end-to-end: resolve its handler, follow the call chain, and collect all emitted SQL queries and environment variables. Query by route pattern, path, or handler symbol.

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. Constant nested Gin/Echo/Fiber Group prefixes and Chi Route closure prefixes are composed into final paths; dynamically computed prefixes remain unresolved and can still be queried by suffix or handler. The MCP server checks content-digest freshness before this call and incrementally refreshes changed package ASTs in the current requested analysis mode; precise and precise_fallback graphs retry repository-wide CHA/SSA after source changes. Read-only; no side effects. 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, clamped to 1-20 (default: 5)
queryYesRoute pattern ("POST /api/users"), path suffix ("POST /users"), or handler symbol name ("CreateUser"). Constant grouped prefixes are resolved; dynamic prefixes remain best-effort.
mermaidNoReturn Mermaid flowchart text instead of structured JSON
include_testsNoInclude routes registered in *_test.go files
Install Server

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds transparency beyond the annotations by explaining internal behaviors such as content-digest freshness checks, incremental AST refreshes, and handling of dynamic prefixes. While valuable, some details are repeated, slightly reducing impact.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is overly verbose and repetitive. It repeats parameter descriptions, route-resolution details, and the concept of depth multiple times. It could be streamlined to half its length without losing essential information.

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?

The description compensates for the lack of an output schema by describing the return structure (array of endpoint slices with route, handler, call chain, SQL, env fields) and the not-found case (found:false with suggestion). It also explains the refresh behavior, making it fairly complete.

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?

The schema already provides descriptions for all four parameters, and the description repeats these almost verbatim. It adds minimal extra clarification (e.g., depth meaning, mermaid alternative) but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 clearly states that the tool builds a full vertical slice for one HTTP route, listing the specific outputs (handler symbol, BFS call chain, SQL queries, env vars). It differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on a single route and its end-to-end behavior.

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?

The description explicitly provides usage guidance via 'WHEN TO USE' and 'NOT TO USE' sections, naming alternatives like gograph_routes for listing all routes and gograph_source for raw source code. This gives clear direction on when to choose this tool over others.

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

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