Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
code-explorer

code-explorer

by vmikhailov
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

get_project_entry_points

Locate controllers, handlers, and API endpoints in a project to map request entry points and support call-chain tracing.

Instructions

Find entry points (controllers, handlers, endpoints) inside a project.

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": {
      "projectName": "<projectName>"
    },
    "name": "get_project_entry_points"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectNameYesProject name.
workspacePathNoOptional workspace root path.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.80.5

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The word 'Find' implies a read-only lookup, but the description says nothing about permissions, whether the workspace must be indexed first, how large the result can get, or what an entry point record looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a substantial gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding or repetition. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing guidance noted elsewhere.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is simple (two flat parameters, no output schema), but the definition still leaves open what is returned and whether indexing or workspace state matters. It is minimally viable rather than complete.

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 both projectName and workspacePath are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about how workspacePath affects resolution or how projectName is matched, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description names a specific verb+resource combination ('Find entry points') and disambiguates the abstract term with concrete examples (controllers, handlers, endpoints) scoped to a project. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as get_file_outline or get_architecture_map, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent only learns what it retrieves, not the conditions that make it the right choice.

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