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 | DID of the agent to get graph for, e.g. did:moltrust:a1b2c3d4e5f60718 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / did / descriptionAdded value: +"DID of the agent to get graph for, e.g. did:moltrust:a1b2c3d4e5f60718"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context beyond that: the traversal is fixed at 2 hops and the response splits into scored nodes and endorsement edges, which affects how results should be interpreted. It doesn't mention cost, rate limits, or behavior when the agent has no endorsements, keeping it out of the top band.
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 core sentence is front-loaded and the hop limit is stated immediately, which is the right priority. The trailing Args section duplicates the schema verbatim and is the one piece that doesn't earn 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?
An output schema exists and annotations cover read-only semantics, so the description only needs to frame the operation. It does that by disclosing the 2-hop depth and the node/edge shape, leaving little an agent needs to guess before calling it.
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?
There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including a concrete example DID, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description's Args block only restates the schema's own text, adding nothing new.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Get the trust propagation graph for an agent") plus its scope limit (2 hops), and describes what the result contains (nodes with scores, endorsement edges). This is enough to tell it apart from single-value siblings like mt_get_trust_score or aggregate siblings like mt_get_swarm_stats, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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 is only implied by the description of the output: an agent can infer it should call this when it needs endorsement relationships rather than a score. There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no mention of alternatives such as mt_get_trust_score for a plain score lookup.
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.