Retrieve read-only graph statistics on link counts, repository freshness (including BEHIND indexing), and dependency relationships from declaration files.
The state of the graph: links counted by how they are known, each repository's freshness (marked BEHIND when a push has not finished indexing), and how repositories depend on each other, from the files that declare it. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'Read-only' line is redundant but consistent. It does add real domain behavior beyond the annotations by explaining the BEHIND marker meaning (a push has not finished indexing) and clarifying that link counts are grouped by how relationships are known, which tells the agent how to read the output.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single dense sentence front-loads the resource, then lists the three returned facets, ending with a short safety note. Every clause carries information, though the phrasing 'links counted by how they are known' is slightly indirect and the trailing 'Read-only' duplicates the annotation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description must convey what comes back, and it does so at a high level for all three output facets, including the meaning of the BEHIND flag. It could say more about scope (single workspace vs all repositories) or output shape, but for a parameterless read-only summary it is largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the empty schema is self-evident and the description correctly spends no words on arguments.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific resource (the graph) and enumerates what its state covers: link counts by provenance, per-repository freshness with a BEHIND flag, and inter-repository dependencies. An agent can tell this is a graph-level summary rather than a single-repo lookup, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like get_tech_stack or get_context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied: the mention of freshness and dependency data suggests it is the orientation/overview call before drilling into a repository. There is no statement of when to prefer it over sibling get_* tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.