Scan indexed code to detect potential N+1 query patterns and heavy database usage, helping you find performance bottlenecks before they affect production.
Scan for potential N+1 query patterns or heavy database usage in the indexed code.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Scan' and 'potential' weakly imply a read-only, non-mutating analysis, but the description never confirms side effects, cost, rate limits, or what the result set looks like.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the target problem class, with no filler. 'or heavy database usage' broadens scope usefully rather than padding.
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?
For a zero-parameter analysis tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what it does but not what an agent gets back (file/line locations, severity, confidence) or any invocation constraints. Adequate but with visible gaps.
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. Baseline 4 applies; the description cannot add parameter meaning that does not exist.
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?
States a specific verb ('Scan') and resource ('N+1 query patterns or heavy database usage') scoped to 'the indexed code'. This clearly distinguishes it from generic siblings like axon_pro_query or axon_pro_search_code, though it doesn't name a sibling explicitly.
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?
No guidance on when to reach for this tool versus the other 14 analysis tools, no prerequisites (e.g., does the code need to be indexed first?), and no exclusions. Usage is only inferable from the purpose itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.