Reveals how knowledge is organized by mapping module clusters, their owners, and brokers who bridge teams. Use it to uncover silos and identify who connects separate groups.
Territories (module clusters that change together, found by label propagation), who holds each, and the brokers that connect people (betweenness). Use for 'how is knowledge organised', 'silos', 'who bridges teams'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tenant | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the underlying algorithms (label propagation for clusters, betweenness for brokers), which adds genuine context about how results are derived. It does not, however, state cost, permissions, or that it is a read-only analysis, leaving key traits unstated.
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?
Two dense sentences with the primary resource definition front-loaded followed by usage examples. The parentheticals are compact and the structure is easy to parse, though the phrasing is noun-heavy rather than an explicit verb.
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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately describes the returned artifacts (territories, holders, brokers), which the agent would otherwise lack. It is incomplete on the tenant parameter and on behavioral/permission aspects, but the core analysis is sufficiently explained.
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 single 'tenant' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description, so nothing is added beyond the bare name. Although 'tenant' is a somewhat self-explanatory scoping concept, its default (empty) and required-status are not explained anywhere.
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 the concrete resource it produces: territories (module clusters found by label propagation), who holds each, and brokers (via betweenness). An agent can form a clear mental model of the output. It stops short of naming which sibling it replaces (e.g., find_modules or who_knows), relying on the example phrases for differentiation.
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?
Explicit example intents are given: 'how is knowledge organised', 'silos', 'who bridges teams', which map directly to user questions. However, there is no when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as who_knows or path_between, so the agent must infer the boundaries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.