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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | ||
| items | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / countAdded value: +{
+ "type": "number"
+}Output schema / properties / cwe_idRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Child CWE identifier",
- "type": "string"
-}Output schema / properties / itemsAdded value: +{
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "ID": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "Primary_Parent": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "Type": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "ViewID": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+}Output schema / properties / parentsRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Array of parent CWE records",
- "items": {
- "properties": {
- "cwe_id": {
- "description": "Parent CWE identifier",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "name": {
- "description": "Parent name",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "relation_type": {
- "description": "Type of parent relationship",
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "type": "object"
- },
- "type": "array"
-}Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "id": "89"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Parent relationships of a CWE",
+ "properties": {
+ "cwe_id": {
+ "description": "Child CWE identifier",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "parents": {
+ "description": "Array of parent CWE records",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "cwe_id": {
+ "description": "Parent CWE identifier",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "description": "Parent name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "relation_type": {
+ "description": "Type of parent relationship",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is established. The description adds only the scoping detail of 'immediate' parents versus broader ancestry, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, or handling of missing parents.
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 with natural-language query examples, then states the operation and use case. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition of schema/annotation details.
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?
This is a simple one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema available. The description fully covers the query intent, the meaning of the parameter, and the expected directional traversal, so no critical context is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does: 'of [N]' and 'where does [CWE] sit' make clear that the single `id` parameter is a CWE identifier. The schema's example of `89` reinforces the expected format, though the description doesn't explicitly mention whether IDs should be numeric or prefixed with 'CWE-'.
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 names a specific operation—'list immediate parents of a CWE'—with a clear resource (CWE taxonomy) and direction ('walk up'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like children or descendants by emphasizing 'immediate parents' and moving to a more general class.
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 indicates when to use it: when the user wants the parent CWE, broader weakness category, or taxonomy placement. It gives natural-language query examples and an explicit use case ('Use to walk up to a more general weakness class'), though it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it.
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.