project-graph-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

filters

Manage project-scan filter rules to exclude or include directories, file patterns, hidden items, and .gitignore behavior, controlling what code enters the AI context to reduce token usage.

Instructions

Filter configuration. Actions: get|set|add_excludes|remove_excludes|reset

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": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "filters"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`dirs`	No	For add_excludes/remove_excludes
`action`	Yes	Filter action to perform
`excludeDirs`	No	For set: directories to exclude
`useGitignore`	No	For set: use .gitignore patterns
`includeHidden`	No	For set: include hidden directories
`excludePatterns`	No	For set: file patterns to exclude

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.4.3Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It mentions actions like get/set/reset but gives no details on side effects, persistence, permissions, or return values, which is minimal and insufficient for a mutation-capable tool.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence that lists actions without verbose filler. It is concise and easy to parse, though it could benefit from more structure to separate the actions' purposes.

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 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain the semantics of each action, when to use them, or what the tool returns, leaving significant gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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 baseline is 3. The description's list of actions does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it neither helps nor hurts.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states 'Filter configuration' and lists actions, giving a sense of the tool's purpose. However, it lacks a clear verb-resource structure and doesn't specify what 'filters' apply to, making it somewhat vague and not fully distinguishing from siblings.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool or when to prefer an alternative. The list of actions is present but without any context on prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction.

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