Get the trust propagation graph for an agent (2 hops).
Returns nodes (agents with scores) and edges (endorsements) showing
who endorses this agent and who endorses them.
Args:
did: DID of the agent to get graph for
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| did | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the 2-hop scope and the returned nodes/edges, and the verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation. It does not mention authentication requirements, behavior for unknown DIDs, pagination, or data freshness, leaving some gaps.
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 compact and front-loaded: the core purpose appears in the first sentence, followed by a concise return summary and an Args section. Every sentence contributes value with no repetition or filler.
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?
For a single-parameter, read-only graph query with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what the graph represents, the hop limit, and the output structure. It is missing usage guidance and failure behavior, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity.
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%, so the description must compensate. It adds 'DID of the agent to get graph for', which clarifies the parameter's role and purpose, but it does not provide format expectations, examples, or edge-case meaning beyond a simple restatement.
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 tool gets a trust propagation graph for an agent, limited to 2 hops, and specifies the return shape (nodes and edges). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like mt_get_trust_score or mt_get_swarm_stats, so it misses the top score.
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?
Usage context is implied by the purpose: use it when you need a 2-hop trust graph for a DID. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling graph/trust/score tools, and no exclusions or alternative recommendations.
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.