erinys_lineageTraces a memory's provenance upward through parent or distilled-from links and returns the complete ancestry chain showing how it was derived.
VMG Provenance Visibility: 記憶の出自系譜を祖先方向に辿って返す。
各ノードの provenance.parents(無ければ distilled_from)を辿り、 どの記憶からどう派生したかの lineage-complete な鎖を構成する。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| max_depth | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the traversal mechanism (parents first, distilled_from as fallback) and implies a bounded read. However, it never states that the operation is read-only, what happens when max_depth truncates the chain, or how cycles are handled — meaningful gaps for a graph walk.
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, front-loaded with the provenance-visibility framing followed by the mechanism. Efficient, though the untranslated Japanese and the opaque 'VMG Provenance Visibility' label add noise for a non-Japanese reader.
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 values need not be explained, and the traversal mechanism is covered. What is missing for a 2-parameter graph tool is the meaning of id and max_depth plus truncation/cycle behavior — and the description being Japanese-only reduces usability for agents reading the English title and siblings.
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 neither parameter is mentioned: 'id' is never identified as the memory to trace, and 'max_depth' (default 10) is never explained as the traversal bound. The description's talk of a chain implies limits but gives no semantics for either input.
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 a specific verb and resource: it walks a memory's provenance in the ancestor direction and composes a lineage-complete chain via provenance.parents with a distilled_from fallback. That is far more specific than a restated name, but it never distinguishes itself from nearby siblings such as erinys_traverse or erinys_timeline, which an agent could easily confuse with ancestry traversal.
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 guidance on when to call this versus erinys_traverse, erinys_context, or erinys_timeline, and no prerequisites are stated. The agent must infer the selection rule from the description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.