Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
code-explorer

code-explorer

by vmikhailov
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

get_taxonomy

Retrieve the active graph schema—node kinds, relationship types, and properties—to validate queries and map repository architecture before analysis.

Instructions

Retrieve active graph schema (node kinds, relationship types, properties).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_taxonomy"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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 burden. The word 'active' hints that the schema reflects the current indexed state, but nothing is said about prerequisites (workspace initialization/scan), error behavior, or size of the result set.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the parenthetical is efficiently informative. It is terse to the point of omitting context, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a simple single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned at a high level. It stops short of saying when the schema is populated or how large it can be, leaving an agent to infer prerequisites.

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 coverage is 100% for the single optional workspacePath parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no meaning about defaulting to the current workspace or how the path scopes the returned schema, so baseline 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?

Specific verb plus resource ('Retrieve active graph schema') with a parenthetical that enumerates the contents (node kinds, relationship types, properties). This clearly separates it from query/analysis siblings like execute_project_query, though it doesn't name an alternative.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as get_node_definition or get_architecture_overview, and no stated prerequisite (e.g. whether the workspace must first be indexed). Usage is only implicit from 'active graph schema'.

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