Skip to main content
Glama

gograph_endpoint

Read-onlyIdempotent

Audit any HTTP endpoint end-to-end by tracing its handler, downstream call chain, SQL queries, and environment variables in a single read-only operation.

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. 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. 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, clamped to 1-20 (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.
mermaidNoReturn Mermaid flowchart text instead of structured JSON
include_testsNoInclude routes registered in *_test.go files
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only; no side effects.' Beyond annotations, it discloses freshness/refresh behavior, a concrete limitation (nested route-group prefixes lost), and the found:false suggestion behavior, adding valuable context not present in structured metadata.

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?

The description is longer than average but logically structured with labeled sections (LIMITATION, WHEN TO USE, NOT TO USE, RETURNS). It is front-loaded with the core purpose and each section earns its place, though some sentences (e.g., MCP server freshness details) could be tightened without losing value.

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 lacking an output schema, the description fully covers the return shape, the found:false case, parameter semantics, limitations, and alternatives. It also explains behavior around freshness and analysis modes, making it comprehensive for a complex tool with four parameters.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic value by advising to 'Always query by the final route path suffix or, ideally, by the handler function symbol name' and clarifying the query parameter's accepted forms. Depth's role is also reinforced, though mermaid and include_tests rely on schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Build a full vertical slice for one HTTP route' and enumerates the exact output components (handler, BFS call chain, SQL queries, env vars). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings in the NOT TO USE section, naming gograph_routes and gograph_source as alternatives.

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?

WHEN TO USE and NOT TO USE sections are explicit, giving clear use cases ('auditing what an API endpoint does end-to-end') and named alternatives for different needs. It also provides query strategy guidance due to the noted limitation, which further clarifies proper usage.

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