Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gograph

gograph

by ozgurcd
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Local

gograph_godobj

Read-onlyIdempotent

Detect God Object anti-pattern candidates by scoring structs on method, field, and outgoing call counts, helping architecture reviews identify monolithic structs to decompose.

Instructions

Detect God Object anti-pattern candidates by scoring structs on method count, field count, and outgoing call count. 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. Thresholds: methods (default: 5), fields (default: 8), calls (default: 15); top limits results (default: 10). Exceeding any enabled threshold qualifies a struct, and the combined excess determines rank. WHEN TO USE: During architecture reviews to find monolithic structs that should be decomposed. NOT TO USE: For general struct layout inspection (use gograph_fields); for single-function complexity (use gograph_complexity). RETURNS: Ranked candidates with method, field, and call counts; empty when no threshold is exceeded.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topNoMaximum results to return (default: 10)
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.
callsNoMinimum outgoing call count (default: 15)
fieldsNoMinimum field count (default: 8)
methodsNoMinimum method count (default: 5)
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. Changed4 schema fields changedv1.5.6
    • changedInput schema / properties / calls / type
      Previous value: -"number"New value: +"integer"
    • changedInput schema / properties / fields / type
      Previous value: -"number"New value: +"integer"
    • changedInput schema / properties / methods / type
      Previous value: -"number"New value: +"integer"
    • changedInput schema / properties / top / type
      Previous value: -"number"New value: +"integer"
  3. Addedv1.5.3
  4. Removedv1.5.3
  5. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and 'Read-only; no side effects' merely restates them. However the description adds genuine behavioral context beyond annotations: a freshness check with automatic refresh, CHA/SSA retry on precise graphs after source changes, and the qualification/ranking rule (any exceeded threshold qualifies, combined excess ranks). That is meaningful for interpreting and trusting results.

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 labeled WHEN TO USE / NOT TO USE / RETURNS sections that are easy to scan. The freshness/refresh sentence is dense and slightly verbose, but overall every part contributes.

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?

With 7 optional parameters and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-value information via RETURNS (ranked candidates with method/field/call counts, empty when nothing exceeds thresholds). Nothing needed to call it correctly appears to be missing.

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 each parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds real value about how thresholds interact (any enabled threshold qualifies, combined excess determines rank) but otherwise repeats the defaults already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Names a specific verb and target ('Detect God Object anti-pattern candidates') and states the scoring dimensions: method count, field count, outgoing call count. It also names the sibling tools it is NOT (gograph_fields, gograph_complexity), so an agent can disambiguate without opening other schemas.

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 ('during architecture reviews to find monolithic structs that should be decomposed') and NOT TO USE with two named alternatives and the conditions that select them. Little is left to inference.

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