Skip to main content
Glama
Hei33enberg

WhiteIntel MCP Server

by Hei33enberg

graph_path

Find how two corporate entities are connected by following ownership and control edges, returning ordered hops. The search is bounded, so verify the response's bounds before concluding no connection exists.

Instructions

Find how two entities are connected: a bounded breadth-first search over ownership and control edges in both directions, returning the ordered hops from one to the other. WARNING, AND IT CHANGES HOW YOU MUST REPORT THE RESULT: this search is BOUNDED, NOT EXHAUSTIVE. At most 15 edges are followed per entity, per direction, per hop, so a genuine connection running through a heavily-connected intermediary can be missed. found: false means NO PATH WAS FOUND WITHIN THOSE BOUNDS — it is NOT evidence that the two entities are unconnected, and must never be reported as a clean result. The response always carries exhaustive: false, a structured verdict (e.g. 'connected_within_bounds') and a bounds_note restating this. AND THE DEPTH YOU GET IS NOT THE DEPTH YOU ASK FOR: the response echoes its own max_depth plus depth_capped, and those are the authority. Measured 2026-08-11 anonymously — max_depth=3 and max_depth=4 both came back as max_depth: 2, depth_capped: true, plan: 'free'. So a free-tier found: false is a two-hop negative however many hops you requested; say two hops, not four.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYesEnd entity uuid.
fromYesStart entity uuid.
max_depthNoMax hops to request (default 3). Reduced by the plan — anonymous callers measured at 2 — so read the response's `max_depth` and `depth_capped`. Depth 4 is measurably slower on densely connected entities; request it deliberately.
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It excels here, detailing the bounded BFS, non-exhaustive nature, depth-capping behavior, free-tier plan limitation, and the meaning of found:false. It also discusses response fields like exhaustive, verdict, bounds_note, and depth_capped, giving the agent comprehensive insight into runtime behavior.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is verbose and heavily repetitive, with multiple ALL-CAPS warnings and run-on sentences. While every sentence adds some information, the structure is not concise and would benefit from tighter organization. The core message could be delivered in half the length without losing impact.

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?

Given the complexity of the tool and the lack of annotations or output schema, the description is highly complete. It covers edge cases (bounded search), failure semantics (found:false), response structure (verdict, bounds_note, depth_capped), plan limitations, and performance characteristics, ensuring the agent is well-informed about all important behaviors.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description notably enhances understanding of max_depth by warning that the response's max_depth may be reduced and advising deliberate use of depth 4. However, it adds no new meaning for the from/to parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find how two entities are connected' via a bounded breadth-first search over ownership and control edges, returning ordered hops. This is a specific verb+resource description, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like trace_ownership_path or graph_neighbourhood.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

While the description provides extensive operational warnings (e.g., bounded search, not to report found:false as clean), it offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings or what alternatives exist. The usage context is implied but no exclusions or comparisons are given.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Hei33enberg/WhiteIntel-OS'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server