Identify the root directory used for scanning API dependencies. Provides the starting point for building service-to-service dependency maps.
Show API dependency scan root.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. 'Show' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explain what 'root' means, what the output shape is, or whether the call fails when no scan has been performed. This is a significant gap given there is no output schema.
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 short sentence with no filler and the verb is front-loaded. It is structurally clean, though the terseness contributes to the ambiguity around 'root.'
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?
For a zero-parameter tool this is still thin: it does not explain what the returned root is, when to call the tool in the scan workflow, or how it relates to apidep_scan and apidep_map. An agent can invoke it but cannot interpret the result or choose it confidently over 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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% description coverage by default, so the description has no parameter documentation burden. The baseline of 4 is appropriate here.
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 uses a specific verb, 'Show,' and names a resource, 'API dependency scan root,' so it is not a tautology. However, 'root' is undefined — it could mean the root of a dependency tree, a root endpoint, or scan status — and there is no mention of how it differs from apidep_scan or apidep_map.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to call this tool versus its siblings. It does not state that this is a status/root query to be used after a scan, nor does it mention any conditions or sequencing. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.