Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gograph

gograph

by ozgurcd
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Local

gograph_httpcalls

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists bounded, read-only HTTP evidence from Go net/http calls and NewRequest construction, with file/line detail, URL parts, and pagination for workspace analysis.

Instructions

List a bounded page of HTTP evidence from imported, unshadowed net/http Get/Post/PostForm/Head calls and possible NewRequest/NewRequestWithContext construction. Client receiver methods and arbitrary URL-building functions are not inferred. Static strings and bounded lexical base + static suffix expressions are recorded; runtime environment values are never read. Construction is not dispatch proof. Workspace http_clients may explicitly map bases or env:KEY to scoped logical authorities; unresolved destinations remain workspace diagnostics. The MCP server refreshes source analysis before this call. Read-only. Optional term matches method, URL/base, or function. RETURNS: gograph.results.v1 rows with file/line and dynamic base/suffix or request-only evidence in detail, plus total/returned/truncated/next_cursor. For server routes use gograph_routes.

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.
termNoOptional filter term (matches method, URL, or function name — e.g., 'POST' or 'api.example.com')
limitNoMaximum rows per page; the byte budget may return fewer.
cursorNoOpaque next_cursor for the same graph snapshot and result selection.
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. Addedv1.4.80

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, and the description adds real operational context on top: the server refreshes source analysis before the call, runtime environment values are never read, and construction is not dispatch proof. It also discloses that unresolved destinations surface as workspace diagnostics and that workspace http_clients mappings can resolve bases or env:KEY, which are non-obvious behaviors an agent needs.

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 scope statement is front-loaded and every sentence carries information about inference limits, resolution behavior, or return shape. It is dense and jargon-heavy, which costs some readability, but there is no filler or repetition.

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?

For a static-analysis tool with six optional parameters, pagination, and session plumbing, the description covers scope, exclusions, refresh behavior, and return fields (file/line, dynamic base/suffix evidence, total/returned/truncated/next_cursor). Session and intention semantics are left to the 100%-covered schema, so the remaining gap is minor.

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 the schema already documents all six parameters, and the baseline is 3. The description's note that the optional term matches method, URL/base, or function largely restates the schema, and it adds only the framing of results as a bounded page, which mildly clarifies limit/cursor without new syntax detail.

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 names a specific verb and resource: a bounded page of HTTP evidence from imported, unshadowed net/http Get/Post/PostForm/Head calls plus possible NewRequest/NewRequestWithContext construction. It also states explicit scope limits (client receiver methods and arbitrary URL-building functions are not inferred) and points to gograph_routes for server-side routes, so it is distinguishable from siblings without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides a clear usage context (client-side outbound HTTP evidence) and one explicit alternative: 'For server routes use gograph_routes.' It also states what the tool will not infer, which implicitly tells the agent when to look elsewhere. It does not, however, route the agent away from other plausible siblings such as gograph_endpoint, gograph_api, or gograph_envs.

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