Analyzes a code snippet and returns actionable clean architecture refactoring suggestions to resolve layer violations and enforce project standards.
Analyzes a code snippet and returns actionable clean architecture refactoring suggestions
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | Source code content to inspect | |
| filename | Yes | Filename (e.g. src/controllers/user.controller.ts, src/routes/user.rs) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a non-mutating read (returns suggestions rather than applying fixes), which is useful, but says nothing about whether any files are touched, permission/auth needs, or how many suggestions are returned.
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 efficient sentence with no waste; the intent is front-loaded. It is perhaps slightly too terse for the tool's complexity, but nothing is padded.
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 only two simple parameters and no output schema, the description need not detail return values, but it also never characterizes the kinds of suggestions or scope of the analysis, leaving meaningful ambiguity for a tool whose name implies a stronger action than described.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% with both required parameters fully documented (code content, filename with path examples), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 gives a clear verb and resource ('analyzes a code snippet and returns... refactoring suggestions'), but the tool name 'repoguard_fix' suggests code modification while the description only promises suggestions, a mild tension. It does nothing to distinguish itself from sibling repoguard_audit, which plausibly also analyzes code, so an agent cannot confidently route between them.
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?
There is no when-to-use, when-not, or alternative guidance. With three siblings (audit, diff, get_rules) that could each plausibly apply to a snippet, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.