Find adverse outcome pathways related to a source AOP via shared key events or KERs. Use an AOP ID to discover connected pathways for scientific review.
Find AOPs related to a source AOP through shared key events or KERs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| aop_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| aop | Yes | ||
| results | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.10.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the relation mechanism (shared key events or KERs) which is useful behavioral context, but does not disclose pagination, rate limits, or other operational traits.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It delivers the core purpose 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?
For a read-only relation-finding tool with full annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose and mechanism. However, it lacks parameter guidance and explicit usage alternatives, making it minimally adequate but incomplete for correct invocation without inspecting other fields.
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 parameters. The aop_id is self-explanatory by name, but limit (default 20, min 1, max 100) is entirely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving a gap that the description fails to compensate for.
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 (Find) and resource (AOPs) plus the relation mechanism (shared key events or KERs). This distinguishes it from get_aop and search_aops, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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 phrase 'related to a source AOP through shared key events or KERs' implies the use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives like find_paths_between_events or get_aop. Usage is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.