Skip to main content
Glama
tosin2013

mcp-adr-analysis-server

by tosin2013
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

analyze_project_ecosystem

Read-onlyIdempotent

Recursively analyze your project ecosystem to identify architecture, dependencies, and risks, using advanced AI techniques for comprehensive insights.

Instructions

Comprehensive recursive project ecosystem analysis with advanced prompting techniques (Knowledge Generation + Reflexion)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectPathNoPath to the project directory to analyze (optional, uses configured PROJECT_PATH if not provided)
enhancedModeNoEnable advanced prompting features (Knowledge Generation + Reflexion)
analysisDepthNoDepth of ecosystem analysiscomprehensive
analysisScopeNoSpecific analysis areas to focus on (e.g., ["security", "performance", "architecture", "dependencies"])
recursiveDepthNoDepth of recursive project analysiscomprehensive
includePatternsNoFile patterns to include in analysis
learningEnabledNoEnable Reflexion learning from past analysis outcomes
technologyFocusNoSpecific technologies to focus analysis on (auto-detected if not provided)
includeEnvironmentNoAutomatically include comprehensive environment analysis (default: true)
knowledgeEnhancementNoEnable Knowledge Generation for technology-specific insights

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.7.46
    • removedInput schema / properties / conversationContext
      Removed value: -{
-  "additionalProperties": false,
-  "description": "Rich context from the calling LLM about user goals and discussion history",
-  "properties": {
-    "budget": {
-      "description": "Budget or resource constraints (e.g., \"limited budget\", \"enterprise scale\")",
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "constraints": {
-      "description": "Limitations, compliance requirements, or restrictions (e.g., [\"GDPR compliance\", \"budget under $50k\", \"minimal downtime\"])",
-      "items": {
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "type": "array"
-    },
-    "focusAreas": {
-      "description": "Specific areas of concern or interest (e.g., [\"security\", \"performance\", \"maintainability\"])",
-      "items": {
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "type": "array"
-    },
-    "humanRequest": {
-      "description": "Original human request text for context restoration and knowledge graph storage",
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "previousContext": {
-      "description": "Relevant context from previous conversation (e.g., \"User mentioned concerns about database splitting\")",
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "projectPhase": {
-      "description": "Current project phase (e.g., \"planning\", \"development\", \"migration\", \"production\")",
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "requirements": {
-      "description": "Specific requirements or preferences mentioned",
-      "items": {
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "type": "array"
-    },
-    "timeline": {
-      "description": "Timeline or urgency information (e.g., \"launch in 3 months\", \"urgent migration\")",
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "userGoals": {
-      "description": "Primary objectives the user wants to achieve (e.g., [\"microservices migration\", \"improve security\"])",
-      "items": {
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "type": "array"
-    },
-    "userRole": {
-      "description": "User's role or expertise level (e.g., \"senior architect\", \"developer\", \"project manager\")",
-      "type": "string"
-    }
-  },
-  "type": "object"
-}
  2. First observed

TDQS

C2.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds no further behavioral context such as output format, execution time, or side effects. Since annotations handle safety, the description offers minimal added value.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure and fails to front-load critical information. For a tool with 10 parameters and complex behavior, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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

Completeness1/5

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

The tool has 10 parameters, no output schema, and multiple siblings, yet the description provides only a one-line summary. It does not explain return values, usage context, or the meaning of 'ecosystem analysis,' making it severely incomplete for correct invocation.

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 all 10 parameters are documented. The description itself does not add any parameter-specific meaning or clarify relationships between parameters, so it remains at the baseline of 3.

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 it performs 'comprehensive recursive project ecosystem analysis' with specific techniques, but does not define what 'ecosystem analysis' includes or how it differs from siblings like analyze_environment or get_architectural_context. The purpose is clear at a high level but lacks specificity to distinguish it from other analysis tools.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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 versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, target scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent without any direction on tool selection.

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