Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gograph

gograph

by ozgurcd
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Local

gograph_mocks

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find test-file structs that implement a named interface, including mocks, stubs, and test doubles, to avoid creating duplicate test mocks. Returns file locations or empty results when none exist.

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

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.
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.
interfaceYesThe name of the interface (e.g., 'AuthService')
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. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
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), yet the description adds real value: it discloses that the server checks graph freshness before the call, refreshes in the requested analysis mode, and that precise/precise_fallback graphs retry CHA/SSA after source changes. That is meaningful non-obvious behavior an agent would otherwise not know. It stops short of 5 only because pagination/byte-budget behavior is left entirely to the schema.

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?

Well structured with explicit WHEN TO USE / NOT TO USE / RETURNS segments and the purpose front-loaded. The freshness-and-CHA/SSA sentence is dense and somewhat internal, but it still earns its place as behavioral disclosure; only minor trimming would improve it.

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?

There is no output schema, but the RETURNS line describes what comes back (test-file struct names with file locations, empty when no mocks exist), which compensates. Combined with the explicit alternative routing and freshness disclosure, an agent has enough to call this correctly; only per-parameter usage nuance is absent.

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 all six parameters are already documented in structured form, including root, limit, cursor, session_id and interface. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that (e.g., no guidance on interface naming, aliasing, or cursor reuse), so the 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), a precise resource scope (structs in *_test.go files), and the concept (test doubles, mocks, stubs) in one front-loaded sentence. It also pins its identity by declaring it equivalent to gograph_implementers with test_only=true, so an agent can distinguish it from the many sibling graph tools immediately.

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 (finding existing mocks before writing a new one) and NOT TO USE (production implementers → gograph_implementers without test_only; new code → prefer gograph_implementers with test_only=true). Both the alternative and the condition selecting it are named, leaving nothing 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