Context-MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

codegraph_arch

Build a module map of files with exports and imports. Understand project structure without reading source files, ideal for quick architectural overview.

Instructions

Return a module map: every file with its exported functions/classes and what it imports. Use this to understand project structure without reading any files. Call after codegraph_build. Much faster than reading each file.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "codegraph_arch"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes	Project root
`limit`	No	Max files in output (default 100)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.0Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that no files are read, that it returns a module map, that it is much faster than reading files, and that it depends on codegraph_build. This is substantive behavioral context, though it does not detail error cases or exact output formatting.

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?

Three dense sentences lead with the purpose, state the prerequisite, and justify the tool's value. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description explains the high-level return shape, the prerequisite, and the intended use. It is sufficient for an agent to select and call the tool correctly, though without an output schema a bit more detail about the exact returned structure could make it fully 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented ('Project root' and 'Max files in output'). The description adds context about what the map contains but no additional detail about how the path or limit parameters behave beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Return a module map' with every file's exported functions/classes and imports. This clearly distinguishes it from generic codegraph query tools by describing a distinct, concrete output.

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 gives clear usage context: use it to understand project structure without reading files, and call it after codegraph_build. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, but the provided context is strong.

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

Deploy Server