Skip to main content
Glama
ozgurcd

gograph

by ozgurcd
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Local

gograph_interfaces

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find every Go interface a named struct satisfies through its method set, revealing which contracts a method change may break before refactoring.

Instructions

Find all Go interfaces satisfied by a named concrete struct (duck-typing resolution — inverse of gograph_implementers). Given a struct name, returns every interface whose complete method set is a subset of that struct's methods. 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 you need to know which contracts a struct implicitly fulfills — useful before refactoring a method to understand which interface contracts will break. NOT TO USE: For finding structs that implement an interface (use gograph_implementers); for listing interface declarations in a package (use gograph_node or gograph_public). RETURNS: Interface names, method signatures, and file locations; empty when the struct satisfies no known interfaces.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum rows per page; the byte budget may return fewer.
cursorNoOpaque next_cursor for the same graph snapshot and result selection.
structYesThe name of the struct (e.g., 'AuthService')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 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"
+}
  2. Addedv1.5.3
  3. Removedv1.5.3
  4. 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 declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety bar is low. The description adds genuinely useful beyond-annotation context: freshness is checked before the call, a refresh happens in the current analysis mode, and precise/precise_fallback graphs retry CHA/SSA after source changes. It stops short of describing pagination or the empty-result edge case in depth.

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 the core one-line definition followed by clearly labeled WHEN/NOT/RETURNS sections. Some phrasing is dense (CHA/SSA retry detail) but each sentence carries distinct information; no filler.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating returns (interface names, method signatures, file locations) and the empty case. Combined with the explicit usage routing and freshness behavior, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents struct, limit (byte budget caveat), and cursor. The description restates that a struct name is the input and clarifies the subset semantics of the query, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (find) and resource (Go interfaces satisfied by a struct), and explicitly frames itself as the inverse of gograph_implementers via duck-typing resolution. An agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening any 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?

Includes explicit WHEN TO USE (know which contracts a struct implicitly fulfills, e.g. before refactoring a method) and NOT TO USE clauses that name the correct alternatives (gograph_implementers for the inverse, gograph_node/gograph_public for interface declarations). Nothing 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