Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
C4 Architect

C4 Architect

by zrack
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

get_architecture_summary

Reads node and relationship counts plus analysis status from a saved, validated architecture graph to verify codebase architecture data before review or reporting.

Instructions

Read counts and analysis status from a saved, validated architecture graph.

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": {
      "graphPath": "<graphPath>"
    },
    "name": "get_architecture_summary"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
graphPathYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0-alpha.1

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does deliver two useful facts: this is a read operation (non-destructive) and the target graph must be saved and validated first. It says nothing about what happens when the graph fails validation, whether the file is read from disk, or what fields/format the summary takes, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 filler; the key scope constraint ("saved, validated") appears immediately. Slight under-specification rather than verbosity is the issue.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should say more about the returned summary (which counts, what "analysis status" values mean). It is adequate to identify the tool but not complete enough for an agent to predict the result shape.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required parameter graphPath, and the description never explains what that path should point to (file path, workspace-relative, supported extensions). It only hints that the graph is "saved," which does not sufficiently compensate for the total lack of schema documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ("Read") and names the resource precisely ("counts and analysis status" from an architecture graph), which separates it from siblings that render, query, or compare graphs. It does not explicitly name those siblings as alternatives, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling tools an agent might pick instead. The only implicit routing signal is that the graph must already be saved and validated, versus analyze_architectural_boundaries or query_architecture_graph which presumably do more.

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