Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
lynxprompt-mcp

lynxprompt-mcp

by GeiserX
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Remote

Get my hierarchy

get_hierarchy
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a hierarchy with all its blueprints as both a flat list and a parent_id-nested tree; use it to inspect structure without loading blueprint content.

Instructions

Read one of your hierarchies with every blueprint in it, both as a flat list (blueprints[], with repository_path and content_checksum) and as a tree nested by parent_id. Blueprint content is not included; use get_blueprint for that.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_hierarchy"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesHierarchy id from list_hierarchies, e.g. ha_clx1abc.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
treeNoThe same blueprints nested by parent_id
messageNo
successNo
hierarchyNo
blueprintsNoEvery blueprint in the hierarchy, flat
total_blueprintsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.3.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's marginal value is in disclosing the response shape (flat list with repository_path and content_checksum, plus a parent_id tree) and the important exclusion that blueprint content is NOT returned. That exclusion is behaviorally significant and not derivable from annotations; only the openWorld hint is left unelaborated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the return semantics and the key exclusion. No filler or restated name/title.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out in prose, and the description still covers the one thing an agent must know before calling (content requires a follow-up get_blueprint). Nothing needed to invoke this read tool correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single `id` parameter is fully documented (format, pattern, originating tool). The description's phrase 'one of your hierarchies' adds only a mild ownership/scoping nuance, so the schema is doing the heavy lifting per the baseline-3 rule.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Read') plus resource ('one of your hierarchies') and even describes the two shapes of the result (flat blueprints[] and parent_id-nested tree). It distinguishes itself from get_blueprint by naming it as the tool for content, so an agent can differentiate it from siblings without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly routes the agent elsewhere for blueprint content ('use get_blueprint for that'), which is a clear use/no-use boundary. It does not explicitly contrast against list_hierarchies or list_blueprints, but the id-from-list_hierarchies convention in the schema partially fills that gap.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools