redraft

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

orphans

Identify disconnected nodes in the redraft graph with no edges in any direction or type, excluding valid root-level concepts without a part_of parent.

Instructions

Nodes with zero edges in any direction/type (a legitimate root-level concept with no part_of parent is NOT flagged for that alone).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 18, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the actual detection rule plus an important false-positive exclusion (root-level concepts lacking a part_of parent are not flagged). It does not discuss ordering, limits, or how results are shaped, but the output schema covers the return format.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that defines the result set, with a parenthetical that pre-empts the most likely misreading. Every clause earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a zero-parameter diagnostic with an output schema, the description supplies everything needed to invoke and interpret it: the filter rule and the carve-out. Only the relationship to sibling diagnostics is left implicit.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly spends no words on parameter semantics.

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 states precisely what the tool returns: nodes with zero edges in any direction or type. That is a clear, specific discriminator among the diagnostic siblings (dangling_edges, contradictions, stale), though it never names an alternative so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied by the diagnostic family context (an audit tool for finding isolated nodes). There is no explicit 'use this when' guidance and no mention of when a sibling such as dangling_edges would be the better choice.

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