Skip to main content
Glama
ozgurcd

gograph

by ozgurcd
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Local

gograph_literals

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find every Go composite-literal site where a named struct is initialized with Foo{...} syntax, scoping the blast radius before adding or changing struct fields.

Instructions

Find every composite-literal initialization site for a named Go struct — all locations where Foo{...} syntax is used to construct the struct. 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: Before adding a required field to a struct — every site returned will fail to compile if the new field has no default; run this first to scope the migration blast radius. NOT TO USE: For finding string or integer magic values (use gograph_envs or grep for those); for factory functions that return the struct (use gograph_constructors). RETURNS: All file paths and line numbers where the named struct is composite-initialized; empty when the struct has no direct initialization sites.

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., 'User')

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. Addedv1.5.4
  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 cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), but the description adds non-obvious behavior: a freshness check before the call, a refresh in the requested analysis mode, and CHA/SSA retry on precise graphs after source changes. That is genuine context beyond structured fields, though it could clarify result caching or pagination interaction.

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-loads the core purpose, then uses labeled WHEN/NOT/RETURNS blocks that are easy to scan. Slightly dense, particularly the analysis-mode freshness sentence, but every section earns its place.

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 supplies the return contract itself (file paths and line numbers, empty when no sites), plus usage conditions and behavioral caveats. Nothing an agent needs to invoke and interpret this tool is 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 the struct, limit, and cursor semantics are already fully documented in the schema (opaque next_cursor, byte-budget caveat). The description reinforces the 'named struct' concept but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so 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 precise verb (find) and resource (composite-literal initialization sites for a named Go struct) and clarifies with concrete syntax Foo{...}. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming gograph_constructors and gograph_envs, so an agent can separate it 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 (scoping a required-field migration blast radius) and NOT TO USE sections that name the correct alternatives for excluded cases (gograph_envs/grep for magic values, gograph_constructors for factory functions). No inference required to route correctly.

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