Trace profile inheritance chains to identify parent sources for any named profile. Clarify configuration dependencies by showing the child-to-parent source path.
Return child-to-parent profile inheritance source chain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | Yes | ||
| name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It at least indicates a read-style operation by saying 'Return' and discloses the child-to-parent direction, but it does not explain how name and kind identify the profile, what happens when a parent is missing, or what the chain elements contain.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no filler and the core action is front-loaded. It loses a point because 'source chain' is somewhat jargon-heavy, but overall it is compact and efficiently worded.
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?
The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, so the one-line description is the only guidance available. It is far too sparse to allow an agent to correctly construct the required parameters, interpret the result, or choose this tool over the many profile-related 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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate, but it never mentions 'name' or 'kind'. The word 'profile' hints that one parameter identifies a profile, but 'kind' is completely unexplained, leaving an agent unable to determine valid values or how the parameters relate.
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 specific verb and resource: it returns the child-to-parent profile inheritance source chain. It also gives the traversal direction, which adds specificity beyond the tool name. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like u1_get_profile or u1_explain_profile_selection.
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 use this tool instead of u1_get_profile, u1_diff_profiles, or u1_explain_profile_selection. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.