dependency_graph
Get dependency tree for an entity — upstream/downstream.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| direction | No | ||
| entity_id | Yes | ||
| max_depth | No |
dependencyoracle
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explain what 'dependency tree' returns, whether it includes transitive dependencies, how direction defaults behave, or any constraints such as max_depth handling. This is notably insufficient for an unannotated tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise and front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get dependency tree'). The em-dash adds the direction scope. However, it is somewhat under-specified for the tool's complexity, though not wordy or redundant.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters, a complex output concept (dependency tree), and no annotations or output schema, this minimal description is incomplete. It fails to explain key aspects like default direction, depth semantics, or what the returned structure looks like, especially compared to rich sibling tools like 'impact_simulation'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only loosely mentions 'upstream/downstream', missing the 'both' enum value and completely omitting max_depth. It does not add meaningful semantic explanation beyond the raw schema field names and types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get dependency tree for an entity', which is a specific verb and resource, and clarifies it can show upstream/downstream dependencies. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the similarly named sibling 'map_dependency', so it lacks clear sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'map_dependency' or 'blast_radius'. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: inventory, registration, dependency mapping, graph retrieval, and various analyses. While blast_radius and impact_simulation are related, their descriptions clearly differentiate static impact calculation from cascade simulation.
Naming Consistency3/5
All names use snake_case, but there is a mix of noun phrases (asset_inventory, blast_radius) and verb phrases (map_dependency, register_asset). This inconsistency in part-of-speech reduces predictability, though still readable and understandable.
Tool Count5/5
Ten tools is well-scoped for an ICT dependency analysis platform. Each tool covers a meaningful operation without redundancy or bloat.
Completeness3/5
The set covers creation, reading, and analysis well, but it lacks update and delete operations for assets, dependencies, and functions. This leaves lifecycle management incomplete, forcing agents to work around missing mutations.