parents"What's the parent CWE of [N]" / "broader weakness category for [X]" / "where does [CWE] sit in the taxonomy" — list immediate parents of a CWE in the relationship tree. Use to walk up to a more general weakness class.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cwe_id | No | Child CWE identifier | |
| parents | No | Array of parent CWE records |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, indicating a safe, non-destructive operation. The description adds that it returns only immediate parents, which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations.
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 concise: two sentences that are front-loaded with the purpose. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or unnecessary information.
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 the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the purpose and usage context adequately for a simple lookup tool. It does not discuss handling of invalid IDs, but the openWorldHint mitigates this.
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?
The input schema has a single parameter 'id' with 0% schema coverage. The description adds meaning by showing it is a CWE ID through example queries like 'What's the parent CWE of [N]'. However, it does not specify format or constraints, partially compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 verb 'list' and resource 'immediate parents of a CWE'. It provides example queries and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'children' and 'descendants' by specifying upward navigation.
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 explicitly says 'Use to walk up to a more general weakness class', giving clear context for usage. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative tools, but the sibling names and context imply alternatives.
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.
Only 7 of 38 tools are specific to CWE (weakness, children, parents, etc.), while the rest are generic data query, prediction market, and utility tools. This creates massive overlap and confusion: an agent looking for CWE data will encounter many unrelated tools with similar generic names like ask_pipeworx, deep_research, etc.
CWE-specific tools use a consistent noun pattern (weakness, children, parents, etc.), but the remaining tools mix snake_case, camelCase, and no clear pattern (e.g., ask_pipeworx, bet_research, generate_llms_txt). The overall naming is inconsistent.
38 tools is far too many for a CWE server. The vast majority are unrelated to CWE, making the tool surface bloated and unfocused. A concise set of ~5-10 CWE-specific tools would be appropriate.
The CWE-specific tools (weakness, category, view, children, parents, descendants, relationship) cover the main use cases for querying the CWE database. However, the server also includes many unrelated tools that dilute its purpose, making it feel incomplete for someone strictly needing CWE data.