Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gograph

gograph

by ozgurcd
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Local

gograph_fields

Read-onlyIdempotent

Extract all declared fields from a named Go struct, including field names, Go types, and raw struct tag strings for json, db, yaml, or gorm mapping. Use it to inspect struct layouts or enumerate fields before adding new ones.

Instructions

Extract all declared fields from a named Go struct: field names, Go types, and raw struct tag strings (json, db, yaml, gorm, etc.). 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 mapping JSON/DB serialization tags, inspecting struct layouts, or enumerating fields before adding a new one. NOT TO USE: For methods on the struct (use gograph_node or gograph_source); for all struct initialization sites (use gograph_literals). RETURNS: Array of field entries with name, type, and tag string; empty when the struct is not found.

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 fields for (e.g., 'Config', 'User')
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 struct (e.g., 'User')"New value: +"The exact name of the target struct to inspect fields for (e.g., 'Config', 'User')"
  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, and the description still adds real value: it discloses that the server checks freshness before the call, refreshes in the requested analysis mode, and retries CHA/SSA on precise graphs after source changes. It also states the empty-result condition when the struct is not found. What it omits is how the freshness latency or staleness window manifests to the caller, so it stops short of the top mark.

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-loaded with purpose, then clearly labeled WHEN TO USE, NOT TO USE, and RETURNS blocks, so an agent can scan it quickly. The freshness/CHA-SSA sentence is dense jargon packed into the second sentence and could be trimmed, but no section is filler.

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 section correctly supplies the return shape and the empty-result sentinel, which is what an agent most needs. The one gap is that pagination is unmentioned in the description even though limit and cursor exist, so a caller with a large struct must infer paging from the schema alone.

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 coverage is 100%, so root, limit, cursor, struct, intention, and session_id are all already self-documenting. The description names the target ('named Go struct') but adds no format or resolution rules for the struct identifier beyond what the schema states ('exact name ... e.g., Config, User'). Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the semantics.

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 ('Extract all declared fields from a named Go struct') and enumerates exactly what comes back: field names, Go types, and raw tag strings. An agent can distinguish this from sibling introspection tools without opening the 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 cases (tag mapping, layout inspection, pre-add enumeration) and explicit NOT TO USE routing to named siblings: gograph_node/gograph_source for methods and gograph_literals for initialization sites. Both the positive and negative cases are covered.

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