Skip to main content
Glama

Warmth Engine Observatory

by com.warmthengine

traverse_coordination

Walk the Coordination Topology lineage graph (precomputed lookups over the parent→child Coordination Connection DAG). mode="path" returns every path between source and target, each with its CC-type (connection-type) sequence and whether it is pure lineage (homogeneous) or crosses a sibling/bidirectional edge; mode="ancestors"/"descendants" return the nodes reachable up/down the hierarchy; mode="neighbours" returns direct parents and children. For a node's structural metrics or the whole-graph summary rather than walks, use get_topology. cc_types (connection-type filter) and max_depth apply to path AND to the ancestors/descendants/neighbours adjacency walks — supplying either runs a bounded typed walk over the backbone edges. homogeneous_only is path-only (drops any path crossing a sibling edge); sent to an adjacency mode it is returned in ignored_params. A bare numeric node_id missing the E prefix is resolved (the canonical form is echoed as resolved_node_id); a node that exists but carries no backbone edges is reported as such rather than as unknown.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeYesTraversal mode
sourceNoSource node id for mode=path
targetNoTarget node id for mode=path
node_idNoNode id for ancestors | descendants | neighbours (e.g. "E93"; a bare "93" is resolved)
cc_typesNoEdge-type (connection-type) filter, applied to path and adjacency walks; default = all types
max_depthNoMaximum walk depth — path length in mode=path, hop count from node_id in the adjacency modes
homogeneous_onlyNomode=path only — true → drop any path crossing a sibling (Type 6/7) edge; ignored (and echoed in ignored_params) on adjacency modes

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, and it does so thoroughly: it reveals that lookups are precomputed, explains mode-specific behaviors, discloses that homogeneous_only is ignored on adjacency modes and echoed in ignored_params, describes bare-node-id resolution, and notes how existing-but-edge-less nodes are reported.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place, and the most important decision-relevant information is front-loaded. The mode-by-mode behavior, alternative tool, parameter interactions, and edge-case handling are organized logically with no filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity, the description is remarkably complete: it specifies what each mode returns, which parameters affect which modes, what happens to ignored parameters, how IDs are normalized, and how edge-less nodes are classified. Even without an output schema or annotations, an agent has enough context to invoke this tool correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Although the schema already covers each parameter, the description adds meaningful cross-parameter semantics: cc_types and max_depth apply to both path and adjacency modes, homogeneous_only is path-only, and bare numeric IDs are resolved with the canonical form echoed as resolved_node_id. This goes well beyond the schema's per-property descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair, 'Walk the Coordination Topology lineage graph', and immediately grounds it in the parent→child Coordination Connection DAG. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool get_topology by explicitly separating traversal walks from structural metrics and whole-graph summaries.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool versus get_topology: 'For a node's structural metrics or the whole-graph summary rather than walks, use get_topology.' It also maps each mode to its intended use and clarifies which parameters apply to which modes, giving an agent clear selection criteria.

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

All Warmth Engine Observatory toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct data slice or operation. For example, `get_actors` retrieves full actor profiles while `query_scp` offers pivoting and comparison; `search_events` finds event IDs and `get_event` retrieves a full record; `get_threads` provides material links separate from `traverse_coordination` for lineage walks. There is no overlap in purpose.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent `verb_noun` pattern with underscore separators. Most use `get_` for retrieval, with `query_scp`, `search_events`, and `traverse_coordination` using different verbs that accurately reflect their distinct actions. The naming is predictable and intuitive.

Tool Count5/5

16 tools is well-scoped for the complexity of an observation platform that covers actors, blocs, events, connections, topology, vocabulary, statistics, and material links. Each tool earns its place by covering a necessary query pattern without unnecessary fragmentation.

Completeness5/5

The tool set provides comprehensive coverage of the domain: actor retrieval and querying (profiles, comparisons, watch), bloc membership, event discovery and full records, connection traversal and filtering, structural topology, material links, vocabulary lookups, and summary statistics. No obvious gaps in read access are present.

Resources