Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
docsgrep

docsgrep

by reasvyn
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

detect_patterns

Maps architectural patterns in a project directory and identifies refactoring candidates such as base classes, traits, or interfaces based on similarity thresholds.

Instructions

Maps project architectural patterns (MVC, Repository, etc.) and suggests refactoring candidates (Base Class, Trait, Interface).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "dirPath": "<dirPath>"
    },
    "name": "detect_patterns"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dirPathYesThe absolute path to the project directory.
minSimilarityNoMinimum similarity score (0-1) to suggest abstraction. Default: 0.8
focusNoOptional focus area.
includePathNoOptional glob patterns to include.
excludePathNoOptional glob patterns to exclude.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.8.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It does not state whether the tool is read-only or performs mutations, what the output format is, or any side effects (e.g., refactoring suggestions are just suggestions, not modifications). Lacks details on error handling or performance.

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?

Single sentence that is concise and front-loaded. No unnecessary words, clearly communicates core purpose.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given complexity (5 params, no output schema), the description lacks completeness. No mention of return format, whether results are displayed or returned, or any dependencies (e.g., project must be analyzable). No annotations to supplement.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description does not add extra meaning beyond what parameters already convey (e.g., dirPath, minSimilarity, focus). Parameter descriptions in schema are self-explanatory.

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 action (maps, suggests) and resource (architectural patterns, refactoring candidates). It distinguishes from siblings like analyze_code (general analysis) and catch_bugs (bug detection).

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or when not to use it. Among 24 sibling tools with overlapping functions, this is a significant gap.

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