Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gograph

gograph

by ozgurcd
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Local

gograph_path

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find the best call chain between two Go symbols to confirm reachability, prioritizing exact, production, and typed paths over heuristic alternatives.

Instructions

Find the best call chain from one symbol to another. Competing paths rank exact before possible, then shorter, production before tests, typed resolution before heuristics, with a deterministic canonical tie-breaker. The MCP server refreshes source analysis before the call. Read-only; no side effects. WHEN TO USE: To confirm reachability between non-adjacent symbols. NOT TO USE: For all transitive upstream callers (use gograph_impact). RETURNS: from, to, found, and steps[]; with mermaid=true, Mermaid flowchart text.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYesThe target symbol name
fromYesThe starting symbol name
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.
mermaidNoReturn Mermaid flowchart text instead of structured JSON
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. Changed1 schema field changedv1.5.6
    • addedInput schema / properties / mermaid
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Return Mermaid flowchart text instead of structured JSON",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  3. Addedv1.5.3
  4. Removedv1.5.3
  5. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the description's "Read-only; no side effects" is redundant. The genuinely additive parts are the path-ranking rules, the deterministic tie-breaker, and the note that the server refreshes source analysis before the call, which is useful freshness context not available in annotations.

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 action, then uses labeled WHEN TO USE / NOT TO USE / RETURNS sections that are easy to scan. The ranking-criteria sentence is dense but each clause conveys a real ordering rule; slightly more compact phrasing would earn a 5.

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 six parameters, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description covers purpose, routing, ranking semantics, refresh behavior, and return shape (from, to, found, steps[], mermaid variant). Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 including root, session_id, and intention are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the mermaid=true output mode, which the schema already states. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 the best call chain from one symbol to another") and immediately contrasts it with the sibling gograph_impact in the NOT TO USE clause. An agent can distinguish this from impact/callers/callees analysis without opening the 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?

Has explicit WHEN TO USE ("confirm reachability between non-adjacent symbols") and NOT TO USE ("all transitive upstream callers — use gograph_impact") sections naming the alternative tool. This is the strongest form of routing guidance.

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