Identify which mapped UI flows are impacted by changed files through entry-file or dependency-closure matches, and flag cases where coverage remains unknown.
Find mapped flows whose declared entry files or recorded dependency closures intersect changed files. Unknown coverage remains possible.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| files | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| project | Yes | ||
| revision | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's job is to add context beyond that. It does: it discloses the two matching criteria (entry files, dependency closures) and a genuine caveat that 'Unknown coverage remains possible', warning the agent that results may be incomplete. It stops short of any pagination or result-shape detail.
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?
Two tense, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the matching condition leads and the caveat follows. Trimmed to the essentials, though the second sentence is a fragment that could be folded in.
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 no output schema, zero schema description coverage on five parameters, and list-style limit/offset inputs, the description should explain what identification (project/revision) and pagination mean here, and roughly what comes back. It explains none of these, leaving the agent under-equipped for correct invocation.
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 0% and five parameters are undocumented in the schema, so the description carries the full burden. It only hints at the 'files' parameter via 'changed files'; project, revision, limit, and offset are never explained, leaving required scoping and pagination semantics entirely to inference.
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 specific verb ('Find') and a precise resource ('mapped flows'), plus the exact matching condition (declared entry files or recorded dependency closures intersecting changed files). It is clearly an impact-analysis query, though it never names a sibling to sharpen the distinction from get_change_evidence or get_flow_evidence.
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?
The presence of a 'files' input and the phrase 'changed files' implies the tool is used to assess impact for a changeset, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives such as get_change_evidence. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.