Skip to main content
Glama
ozgurcd

gograph

by ozgurcd
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Local

gograph_mocks

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find existing mock, stub, or test-double implementations of a named Go interface in *_test.go files before writing new tests. Returns test-file struct names and locations; empty if none.

Instructions

Find structs in *_test.go files that implement a named interface — test doubles, mocks, and stubs. Equivalent to gograph_implementers with test_only=true; kept for compatibility. 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 writing tests and wanting to find existing mock implementations before creating a new one. NOT TO USE: For production interface implementers (use gograph_implementers without test_only); prefer gograph_implementers(test_only=true) for new code. RETURNS: Test-file struct names implementing the interface with file locations; empty when no test mocks exist for the interface.

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.
interfaceYesThe name of the interface (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 establish readOnly/idempotent/no-destructive, so 'Read-only; no side effects' is redundant. However the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond the annotations: the server checks freshness before the call, refreshes in the requested analysis mode, and precise/precise_fallback graphs retry CHA/SSA after source changes. The empty-result behavior is also disclosed.

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 purpose before the equivalence note, then cleanly sectioned as WHEN TO USE / NOT TO USE / RETURNS. Slightly dense in the middle where the graph-freshness mechanics are packed into one long sentence, but 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 RETURNS section correctly compensates by describing the return shape (test-file struct names with file locations, empty when none exist). Purpose, alternatives, behavior, and return values are all covered for a 3-parameter tool.

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%, and the schema already documents limit, cursor, and interface (including the 'AuthService' example), so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing further about parameter syntax, pagination usage, or how cursor interacts with the freshness/retry behavior described.

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 and resource ('Find structs in *_test.go files that implement a named interface') and sharpens it with the domain gloss ('test doubles, mocks, and stubs'). It also declares its exact equivalence to the sibling gograph_implementers(test_only=true), so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening either 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?

Contains explicit WHEN TO USE and NOT TO USE sections, names the alternative (gograph_implementers without test_only) for the production case, and even recommends the canonical call for new code. There is no ambiguity left about when this tool is the right choice.

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