Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gograph

gograph

by ozgurcd
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Local

gograph_trace

Read-onlyIdempotent

Trace an error string or symbol from its definition up the call chain to HTTP handlers, refreshing in-memory source analysis first. Read-only; no side effects.

Instructions

Alias for gograph_errorflow. Refreshes in-memory source analysis, then traces an error string heuristically from its definition up through the call chain to HTTP handlers. Read-only; no side effects. WHEN TO USE: Prefer gograph_errorflow; this alias exists for compatibility. RETURNS: The same structured output as gograph_errorflow.

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.
termYesError string or symbol name to trace (e.g. 'ErrNotFound', 'permission denied')
no_testsNoIf true, skip collecting related test functions
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. Added

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), so the description's job is to add context — and it does, disclosing that it refreshes in-memory analysis and that tracing is heuristic (results may be approximate) rather than exact. The 'no side effects' claim sits slightly awkwardly next to the cache refresh, but that is an internal state update, not a contradiction of destructiveHint=false.

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?

The alias relationship and core behavior are front-loaded in the opening sentence, and the WHEN TO USE / RETURNS labels make it scannable. The read-only sentence partially duplicates annotations, which is the only waste.

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?

With 5 parameters fully documented and no output schema, the description is nearly complete; it points to gograph_errorflow for the return shape rather than restating it, which is reasonable for an alias. An agent still has to consult the sibling to know the output structure, a small residual gap.

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% and every parameter (root, term, no_tests, intention, session_id) is documented in the schema, including the root alias and refusal behavior. The description adds no parameter-level meaning on top of that, 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('traces an error string'), the scope ('from its definition up through the call chain to HTTP handlers'), and explicitly identifies itself as an alias for gograph_errorflow, which lets an agent place it among 60+ siblings 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?

The WHEN TO USE clause is explicit: 'Prefer gograph_errorflow; this alias exists for compatibility.' That names both the alternative and the condition that selects it, 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