Skip to main content
Glama
ozgurcd

gograph

by ozgurcd
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Local

gograph_risk

Read-onlyIdempotent

Evaluate change risk for a target Go symbol or uncommitted changes, combining blast radius, complexity, test coverage, and dependencies into a 0-100 score and verdict.

Instructions

Evaluate the change risk profile of target symbol(s) or uncommitted changes. Combines blast radius, cyclomatic complexity, test coverage, and downstream environment/SQL dependencies into a normalized 0–100 risk score and verdict. 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. Requires either symbol or uncommitted=true. WHEN TO USE: Before committing edits or when planning changes to understand the technical risk. NOT TO USE: For post-edit review checklist generation (use gograph_review); for pre-edit plan generation (use gograph_plan). RETURNS: JSON with title, results[] containing risk scores, verdicts, and breakdown metrics, and optional message. Uncommitted modes compare declarations against HEAD, including selected untracked Go files. Current-graph consumers refuse incomplete comparisons, deleted declarations requiring historical caller evidence, and missing/ambiguous graph identities. Inspect changes --git REF for the declaration census; rebuild before traversing newly added symbols.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
symbolNoThe name of the target symbol to run the risk evaluation for (e.g. 'AuthService')
uncommittedNoSet to true to evaluate risk for all uncommitted/modified changes in the repository

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.4.80

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent, and the description adds real behavioral context: freshness checking before the call, graph-mode retries (CHA/SSA), and current-graph consumer refusal conditions (incomplete comparisons, deleted declarations, ambiguous identities). This goes well beyond the annotation surface.

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 purpose and organizes content into usage, exclusion, and return sections. However, the trailing sentences about graph consumers, declaration census, and rebuilds are dense implementation detail that could crowd out agent-relevant guidance.

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 a RETURNS section (title, results[], scores, verdicts, breakdown metrics, optional message) and covers uncommitted-mode behavior. An agent has enough to call and interpret it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a meaningful constraint not captured by the schema: 'Requires either symbol or uncommitted=true' (schema marks neither required). This clarifies mutual-requirement semantics for the two params.

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 ('Evaluate the change risk profile of target symbol(s) or uncommitted changes') and spells out what the score combines (blast radius, complexity, coverage, dependencies). The explicit WHEN/NOT TO USE clauses naming gograph_review and gograph_plan let an agent distinguish it from the large sibling set without opening 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?

Provides explicit 'WHEN TO USE: Before committing edits...' and 'NOT TO USE: ... use gograph_review ... use gograph_plan' guidance. The routing conditions are unambiguous and name the concrete alternatives.

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