List entity-to-entity relationships in a CDM/LDM model to inspect model structure. For PDM models, use list_references instead.
List relationships of a CDM/LDM model (entity-to-entity relations). For PDM models use list_references instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool lists entity-to-entity relations and is scoped to CDM/LDM models, which hints at a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state it is read-only, nor describe return content, pagination, error cases, or any requirements such as model access. Thus it offers basic scoping but leaves many behavioral traits unstated.
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?
Two sentences, no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded and the alternative routing is included second, leaving zero wasted content and making it quick to scan.
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 only one required parameter and no output schema. The description captures the most likely confusion point—LD vs PDM—by giving a sibling pointer. Yet it still leaves the response format unspecified, does not note whether the model must be open, and lacks any mention of how the returned relationships are structured, making it only partially complete for a no-annotation, no-output-schema tool.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented model_id. It only implies model_id refers to a CDM/LDM model, but gives no identifier format, whether the model must be open/loaded, or how to resolve it. That is minimal enrichment over an empty property field, failing the compensation burden.
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 explicitly states a specific action: 'List relationships of a CDM/LDM model (entity-to-entity relations)', which identifies the resource and verb clearly. It also differentiates itself from the sibling tool list_references with a direct pointer for PDM models, so an agent can distinguish them without inspecting schemas.
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?
It provides direct when-to-use guidance: this is for CDM/LDM models, and explicitly says 'For PDM models use list_references instead.' This is a clear alternative with a condition, leaving no ambiguity about which tool applies.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.