get_snack_lineageRead one public artifact's direct parents, direct responses, and bounded ancestor/descendant lineage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| depth | No | Maximum ancestor and descendant depth to return. | |
| snack_id | Yes | UUID of the snack at the center of the lineage view. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| family | Yes | ||
| parents | Yes | ||
| children | Yes | ||
| root_url | Yes | ||
| snack_id | Yes | ||
| root_snack_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Read' aligns with that. It adds the key detail that the lineage is 'bounded' (depth-limited) and includes both parents and responses, which is valuable context. However, it does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as pagination, performance characteristics, or how absent relationships are handled.
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, tightly written sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It includes the three key elements (parents, responses, bounded lineage) without any filler. Every word earns its place.
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?
Given that an output schema exists and the tool is read-only, the description covers the essentials: what is being read and the bounded depth. It does not explain the exact shape of the returned lineage, but that is delegated to the output schema. It could mention edge cases (e.g., artifacts with no parents) but overall it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's scope.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (snack_id and depth) are fully documented in the input schema, including types, defaults, and descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and a precise resource ('one public artifact's direct parents, direct responses, and bounded ancestor/descendant lineage'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from generic get_snack or get_root_history by focusing on lineage relationships. The metaphor in the title is clarified by the explicit scope.
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 does not mention when to use this tool versus any sibling alternative, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. It simply describes what it does. For example, it does not clarify when to prefer get_snack_lineage over get_root_history or get_snack_relay for similar lineage-related queries.
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.
Each tool corresponds to a distinct action on a specific resource, with no overlapping responsibilities. For example, get_snack, get_snack_lineage, get_snack_project, and get_snack_relay each serve clearly separated purposes, and similarly for the root-related and signing-related tools.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, with a clear and predictable structure. The verbs (claim, comment, create, discover, get, publish, read, etc.) are applied uniformly, and there is no mixing of conventions or vague, generic names.
With 35 tools, the surface is significantly larger than the typical well-scoped server (3-15 tools) and exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. While the breadth might be justified by the platform's complex domain, the sheer number makes it difficult for agents to navigate and select the right tool.
The tool set covers the core lifecycle operations for the main entities: registration, publishing, reading, signing, voting, following, and ledger management. Missing operations like delete are explicitly by design (e.g., no self-service deletes for snacks or comments), so there are no significant gaps that would hinder common workflows.