Skip to main content
Glama

gograph_routes

Read-onlyIdempotent

List all HTTP routes in a Go codebase with methods, URL patterns, and handler names. Retrieve the complete API surface to prepare for route-specific analysis.

Instructions

List all HTTP routes registered in the codebase with their HTTP methods, URL patterns, and handler function names. 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. LIMITATION: Nested route-group prefixes (e.g. Gin/Echo/Chi Group()) are lost at the static AST level. Routes are recorded under their final path suffix (e.g., '/users' instead of '/api/v1/users'). WHEN TO USE: To get the complete API surface of a service before deep-diving into a specific route with gograph_endpoint. NOT TO USE: For full call chain analysis of a route (use gograph_endpoint instead). RETURNS: Structured table of method/path/handler triples; empty when no HTTP routes are registered in the graph.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Behavior5/5

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

Adds context beyond annotations: freshness check, refresh in current analysis mode, read-only nature, and limitation about nested route-group prefixes. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but description elaborates.

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?

Efficiently uses few sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Includes all necessary sections without verbosity. Could be slightly trimmed but very good.

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?

Given no parameters, no output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, limitations, and return format completely. No gaps.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Description does not need to add parameter info. Baseline 4 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states it lists all HTTP routes with methods, URL patterns, and handler names. Distinguishes from sibling gograph_endpoint which does route-specific analysis.

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?

Explicitly states WHEN TO USE and NOT TO USE, naming alternative gograph_endpoint. Also documents limitation about nested prefixes lost.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ozgurcd/gograph'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server