Inspect the full QObject parent-child tree for a Qt application or widget from a chosen root, including non-visible objects, with an optional traversal depth limit.
Get the full QObject parent-child tree (not just visible widgets).
Args: root_ref: Starting ref. Defaults to QApplication root. max_depth: Maximum traversal depth.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| instance | No | ||
| root_ref | No | ||
| max_depth | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It does disclose meaningful traits — the traversal covers non-visible QObjects and is bounded by a depth limit — but says nothing about traversal cost, output size for large trees, or what happens when root_ref is unresolvable.
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?
One front-loaded sentence carrying the key distinction, followed by a compact args block. Minimal waste; the args block mainly restates schema fields but adds default values for two of them.
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?
An output schema exists, so return shape need not be described. However, with zero annotation coverage and zero schema description coverage on a 3-parameter tool, the missing 'instance' parameter documentation and absent caveats about large-tree traversal leave real gaps.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains root_ref (default QApplication root) and max_depth (traversal bound), but leaves the 'instance' parameter — clearly significant given sibling tools qt_list_instances/qt_select_instance — completely undocumented in both schema and description.
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: retrieving the full QObject parent-child tree. The parenthetical 'not just visible widgets' differentiates it from widget-oriented siblings like qt_find_widget and qt_widget_details, though it doesn't name those siblings explicitly.
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 'not just visible widgets' contrast implies when this tool is preferable to widget-listing tools, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no sibling is named as an alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.