Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gograph

gograph

by ozgurcd
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Local

gograph_orphans

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find Go functions and methods unreachable from runtime roots, tests, and handlers to identify dead code. Use it for code cleanup and dead-code audits.

Instructions

Find functions and methods unreachable from runtime roots (main/init), test/benchmark/fuzz roots, HTTP route handlers, and eligible externally callable exports; exports confined under internal/ are not roots. Uses full BFS reachability. 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: During code cleanup or dead-code audits. NOT TO USE: For checking one symbol's usages (use gograph_usages or gograph_callers). RETURNS: Orphan symbols with package paths and file locations; empty means no unreachable code was detected.

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.
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

A4.4/5.0
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), yet the description still adds real behavior: full BFS reachability semantics, a freshness check performed before the call, and CHA/SSA retry on precise graphs after source changes. That retry/freshness disclosure is genuinely non-obvious and not derivable from structured fields; the only weak spot is the redundant 'Read-only; no side effects' clause.

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 definition, then cleanly partitioned into WHEN TO USE / NOT TO USE / RETURNS blocks. Dense but every sentence carries signal except the 'Read-only; no side effects' restatement of annotations.

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 describing the return payload (orphan symbols with package paths and file locations) and the empty-result meaning. Root semantics, freshness behavior, and pagination-via-schema together leave nothing an agent needs 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 description coverage is 100%, so root, limit, cursor, intention, and session_id are already fully explained in the schema, including the alias and page-budget caveat. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, which is acceptable at this coverage level but earns only the baseline.

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 functions and methods unreachable from...') and then enumerates exactly which roots count — main/init, test/benchmark/fuzz, HTTP route handlers, externally callable exports — plus the internal/ exclusion. That precision lets an agent distinguish it from gograph_usages and gograph_callers 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?

Explicit WHEN TO USE ('code cleanup or dead-code audits') and NOT TO USE ('checking one symbol's usages') with the two named alternatives. Both the positive condition and the exclusion are stated, which is the top of the scale.

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