connect_trust_graphLists outgoing or incoming depth-1 trust edges for a wallet, email, or social handle, showing who it trusts or who trusts it.
List outgoing or incoming trust edges for an identity at depth 1.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| context | No | ||
| platform | Yes | Identity platform, or username for a Connect username | |
| direction | No | out = who they trust (default); in = who trusts them | |
| identifier | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the important 'depth 1' traversal limit and clarifies outgoing vs incoming semantics, but omits return format, pagination, authentication needs, or rate limits.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The scope constraint is stated immediately.
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 is simple and annotations cover safety, but there is no output schema and the description does not explain what a trust edge result looks like, whether results are paginated, or any limits. It is minimally adequate but leaves return-value semantics to inference.
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 50%: platform and direction have schema descriptions, while context and identifier do not. The description's 'outgoing or incoming' maps to direction and 'identity' loosely covers platform/identifier, but it adds little beyond the schema and does not compensate for the undocumented context parameter.
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 (List), resource (trust edges), and scope (outgoing or incoming for an identity at depth 1). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not distinguish itself from siblings like connect_trust_check or connect_lookup.
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 use this tool versus alternatives such as connect_trust_check or connect_trust_create. Usage is only implied from the verb and resource.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.