tentra

list_god_nodes

Identify architectural coupling hotspots by listing symbols with very high fan-in or fan-out in code repositories.

Instructions

List symbols flagged as god nodes (very high fan-in or fan-out). Use to identify architectural coupling hotspots.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_god_nodes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`repo_id`	No	Repo ID (uses latest snapshot)
`snapshot_id`	No	Specific snapshot ID
`top_n`	No	Max god nodes to return

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.0Apr 18, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's purpose and high-level behavior (listing god nodes based on fan-in/fan-out). However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or response format. The description doesn't contradict any annotations.

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?

The description is two concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides usage context. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations, 3 parameters with full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and high-level usage but lacks behavioral details (e.g., output structure, error handling) that would be helpful for an AI agent, especially without annotations.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 3 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'repo_id' or 'snapshot_id' affect the listing). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'symbols flagged as god nodes', specifying the criteria 'very high fan-in or fan-out'. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on architectural coupling hotspots, unlike tools like 'list_snapshots' or 'get_quality_hotspots'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for identifying architectural coupling hotspots, which suggests when to use it (for architectural analysis). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., 'get_quality_hotspots' might overlap for hotspots). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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