Query one persisted repository snapshot for dependency, dependent, and change-risk graph edges.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| direction | No | ||
| file_path | No | ||
| max_depth | No | ||
| max_nodes | No | ||
| snapshot_id | No | ||
| symbol_name | No | ||
| repository_id | Yes | ||
| workspace_evidence_bundle_ref | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. The term 'query' indicates a read-only operation, but there is no elaboration on nondestructive behavior, rate limits, or response size concerns. Adequate but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, given the complexity and number of parameters, slightly expanding to hint at parameter roles would improve usability without sacrificing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 8 parameters, no parameter descriptions, and no output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to properly use this tool. Details on how parameters like 'max_depth' and 'symbol_name' affect the query are missing, and the return format is not described. This is inadequate for a non-trivial graph query tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The tool description does not explain any parameters beyond their names, leaving ambiguity for parameters like 'workspace_evidence_bundle_ref' and the effects of 'direction', 'max_depth', etc. This fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (query), resource (persisted repository snapshot), and specific output types (dependency, dependent, and change-risk graph edges). This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_repository_snapshot which likely returns metadata.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when graph edges are needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target distinct resources or actions, but there is some overlap (e.g., run_repository_fix vs run_repository_pipeline vs simulate_repository) that could cause confusion. Overall, descriptions help differentiate.
Tool names are primarily snake_case with a verb_noun pattern, but there are inconsistencies (e.g., single-word verbs like 'simulate', 'tokenize', and mixed prefixes like 'preview_', 'product_'). The pattern is readable but not uniform.
With 140 tools, the server is extremely over-scoped for typical MCP usage. This overwhelms agents and suggests poor separation of concerns, likely violating the principle of minimal tool surfaces.
The tool set covers a wide range of functionalities including data onboarding, simulation, decisions, repository management, and admin operations. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no update_agent_run), but core workflows are well-supported.
