get_lineage
Get a public birth's whole-lineage proof bundle.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Birth UUID |
Progenly
by com.progenly
TDQS
A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral context. It only mentions 'public', but does not clarify if the operation is read-only, any side effects, or failure modes.
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 a single, focused sentence with no extraneous information, making it highly efficient.
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?
Despite having only one parameter and no output schema, the description fails to explain what a 'whole-lineage proof bundle' comprises or how the output is structured, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with a single 'id' parameter described as 'Birth UUID'. The tool description adds context by specifying that the birth is public and about lineage, which supplements 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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the specific resource 'whole-lineage proof bundle' for a 'public birth', distinguishing it from siblings like get_birth which likely returns a single birth record.
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 this tool is for obtaining lineage proofs, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like get_birth, get_certificate, or verify_certificate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool addresses a distinct operation: merge workflows (stage, join, lock, confirm, cancel, status) are separate from birth queries (get, list, search, random, certificate, lineage, verify) and auxiliary functions (stats, revocations, colony handle verification). No two tools have ambiguous purposes.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (cancel_merge, get_birth, list_births), with minor exceptions like 'merge_status' (noun_verb) and 'random_birth' (adjective_noun). The convention is largely consistent and readable.
Tool Count4/5
16 tools is a reasonable count for a system handling both birth certificates and merge intents. The number is well-scoped, not excessive, and each tool contributes to covering the domain without redundancy.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers the full merge lifecycle (stage, join, lock, confirm, cancel, status) and birth querying (get, list, search, random, certificate, lineage). While there is no explicit tool to create a birth (it is a product of a merge), the set feels complete for the intended workflows.