Skip to main content
Glama

get_adr_graph

Visualize ADR dependency relationships to understand decision impacts and connections across your architecture documentation.

Instructions

Visualize ADR dependency graph. Optionally scope to a single ADR.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
adr_idNoFocus on a specific ADR (omit for full graph)

Implementation Reference

  • The implementation of the get_adr_graph tool handler, which retrieves and formats ADR relations as a text-based graph.
    }, async ({ adr_id }) => {
      const relations = adr_id ? getADRRelations(adr_id) : getAllRelations();
    
      if (!relations.length) {
        return { content: [{ type: 'text', text: 'No relations found. Use link_adrs to connect ADRs.' }] };
      }
    
      const ICONS = { related_to: '↔', conflicts_with: '✕', depends_on: '→' };
    
      // Build adjacency list grouped by relation type
      const groups = {};
      for (const r of relations) {
        const label = r.relation.replace(/_/g, ' ');
        if (!groups[label]) groups[label] = [];
        groups[label].push(
          `  ADR-${r.from_id} "${r.from_title}"  ${ICONS[r.relation] ?? '-'}  ADR-${r.to_id} "${r.to_title}"`
        );
      }
    
      const output = Object.entries(groups)
        .map(([label, lines]) => `### ${label}\n${lines.join('\n')}`)
        .join('\n\n');
    
      return { content: [{ type: 'text', text: `## ADR Dependency Graph\n\n${output}` }] };
    });
  • index.js:209-213 (registration)
    Registration of the get_adr_graph tool, including its description and input schema.
    server.registerTool('get_adr_graph', {
      description: 'Visualize ADR dependency graph. Optionally scope to a single ADR.',
      inputSchema: {
        adr_id: z.number().optional().describe('Focus on a specific ADR (omit for full graph)'),
      },
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'visualizes' a graph, implying a read-only operation that likely returns a visual representation, but it doesn't specify output format (e.g., image, text), performance characteristics, or any constraints like rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: 'Visualize ADR dependency graph. Optionally scope to a single ADR.' Both sentences earn their place by stating the core purpose and a key usage nuance. There is no wasted text, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity of visualizing a dependency graph, the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., graphical format, data structure), how errors are handled, or any behavioral traits. For a tool that likely involves data processing and visualization, this leaves critical gaps for an agent to use it effectively.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'adr_id' documented as 'Focus on a specific ADR (omit for full graph).' The description adds minimal value beyond this, only echoing the optional scoping. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't provide additional syntax or format details.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Visualize ADR dependency graph' with the option to 'scope to a single ADR.' It specifies the verb ('visualize') and resource ('ADR dependency graph'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_timeline' or 'search_decisions,' which might also involve ADR data, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage by mentioning 'Optionally scope to a single ADR,' suggesting it can be used for both full and focused views. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_timeline' or 'search_decisions,' nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent to infer context without clear direction.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/wooxogh/adr-mcp-setup'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server