ast-impact-mapper-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

detect_architectural_cycles

Detect circular import dependencies in TypeScript projects to identify tight coupling and unpredictable module initialization order before refactoring.

Instructions

Detects circular import dependencies — A imports B which imports C which imports A. Cycles cause unpredictable module initialization order and indicate tight coupling. Use to answer: are there circular dependencies I need to break before refactoring?

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": {
      "project_root": "<project_root>"
    },
    "name": "detect_architectural_cycles"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project_root`	Yes	Absolute path to the TypeScript project root (must contain tsconfig.json)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.0Aug 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavior. It explains why cycles matter (unpredictable initialization, tight coupling) but does not disclose output format, side effects, or limitations. The tool is likely read-only, but this is not explicitly stated.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences: one defining the tool's behavior and one giving a use-case question. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no filler.

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 and the schema is clear, but no output schema exists and the description does not explain what the return value looks like. This leaves an information gap for the agent, though the purpose and prerequisites are covered.

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?

The input schema already fully describes the single parameter (project_root) with a clear description. The tool description adds no new parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool detects circular import dependencies, with a concrete example (A imports B which imports C which imports A). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_dependency_graph by focusing on cycles, not the graph itself.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says when to use it: 'Use to answer: are there circular dependencies I need to break before refactoring?' It provides context but does not name alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server