Retrieve a bounded lineage neighborhood for a Knowledge Ledger object to trace provenance, dependencies, and related artifacts using its object ID, depth, and limit.
Return a bounded lineage neighborhood for a Knowledge Ledger object.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| depth | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| object_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 discloses that the result is bounded and implies a read operation, but it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, what 'lineage' includes, or how the neighborhood is traversed.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, so it is concise. But for a tool with three parameters and no schema descriptions, this brevity becomes under-specification rather than effective conciseness.
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 description is too sparse for a graph-lineage tool with zero schema description coverage and no annotations. It does not explain what a lineage neighbor is, how depth and limit affect the result, or why an agent should choose this over sibling retrieval tools.
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 the description does not mention any of the three parameters (object_id, depth, limit). 'Bounded' only vaguely hints at depth/limit without naming or defining them, leaving object_id completely unexplained.
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?
States a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('bounded lineage neighborhood for a Knowledge Ledger object'), so the core action is clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the similar sibling agora_get_argument_neighborhood or explain how it relates to other knowledge-ledger tools like agora_knowledge_ledger.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives are mentioned. The agent must infer that this tool is for querying lineage neighborhoods, but nothing routes it away from or toward other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.