Get the critical path (longest dependency chain) for a capability request. The critical path determines the minimum calendar time to complete the request. Returns node IDs in order, the full node details, and total hours on the critical path.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| requestId | Yes | Request ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral substance by disclosing what is returned (ordered node IDs, full node details, total hours), which matters since there is no output schema.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and no filler. Minor redundancy in restating 'critical path' across sentences, but overall tight and efficient.
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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the meaning of the result, and the return shape. The only real gap is sibling routing against pcc_get_request_dag, which is a minor omission.
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 100% and there is a single requestId parameter, so the schema carries the load. The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond what is already in the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 critical path... for a capability request') and even defines the term parenthetically as the longest dependency chain, so the agent knows exactly what is fetched. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely related sibling pcc_get_request_dag, which an agent selecting between them would need.
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 explains why the critical path matters ('determines the minimum calendar time') but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. With siblings like pcc_get_request and pcc_get_request_dag, the agent gets no routing signal.
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.