Skip to main content
Glama

gograph_untested

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find all production functions and methods that are called in production but lack test coverage, sorted by number of callers.

Instructions

Sweep the full graph in one pass and return all production functions and methods that have at least one non-test caller but zero attributed test edges. Requires .gograph/graph.json — run gograph build . first. Read-only; no side effects. WHEN TO USE: During test coverage audits or pre-release hardening — finds the functions most at risk of regressions (high callers, no tests). Distinct from gograph_orphans (zero callers) — untested symbols ARE used in production but lack test coverage. Replaces N sequential gograph_tests <sym> calls across the full codebase. NOT TO USE: For a single symbol's tests (use gograph_tests); for unreachable dead code (use gograph_orphans). RETURNS: JSON array sorted by caller_count descending, each entry with name, kind, file, line, caller_count, and package; empty array when all called symbols have test coverage.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pkgNoOptional package name substring to filter results (e.g. 'cli', 'search')
topNoLimit results to top N by caller count (0 = all, default)
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds context: requires graph.json, returns sorted JSON array, empty array if fully covered. No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Well-structured with sections, front-loaded purpose, every sentence adds value. No fluff.

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?

Excellent coverage: prerequisites, return format, sorting, empty case, usage scenarios. No output schema, but description fully compensates.

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?

Both parameters (pkg, top) fully described in schema. Description merely echoes schema details without adding new semantic value. Baseline 3 due to 100% schema coverage.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's action: scanning the full graph to return untested functions/methods with at least one non-test caller. It distinguishes from siblings like gograph_orphans (zero callers) and gograph_tests (single symbol).

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 (coverage audits, pre-release) and NOT TO USE (for single symbols or dead code) with clear alternatives. Also mentions prerequisite (run gograph build first).

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