Validate and count code execution traces for a project, preparing call graph data for indexing.
Validate and count traces; graph edge creation is not implemented
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| traces | Yes | ||
| project | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.10.4Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.10.0v0.9.0v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already show this is non-read-only, non-idempotent, and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds one useful behavioral fact: graph edge creation is not implemented. However, it does not disclose whether data is persisted, whether existing traces are replaced, or what the return value is.
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 short sentences with the primary action front-loaded and a key limitation stated directly. It is efficient and every sentence earns its place, though the brevity sacrifices substantive detail.
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 mutating ingestion tool with no output schema and sparse annotations, this is incomplete. It lacks return-value semantics, side-effect disclosure, prerequisites, and parameter meaning, leaving the agent with too much to infer before calling it safely.
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%, and the description names no parameters or fields. The agent must infer the meaning of 'count', 'callee', 'caller', and 'project' from parameter names alone, with no clarification of what 'count' represents in the trace objects.
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 states a concrete action, 'validate and count traces', on a specific resource and explicitly notes that graph edge creation is not implemented, which helps distinguish it from graph-building siblings. It is not a 5 because 'count traces' is slightly ambiguous: it could mean returning a count, storing a count, or computing counts for validation.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative tool among the graph/index siblings. The note about graph edge creation not being implemented implies this is not the graph-write path, but the description never says when to call this instead of index_repository or query_graph.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.