Trace a node's origin and lineage: view superseded predecessors, successors, and source rows.
Where a node comes from: the chain of nodes it superseded (nearest first), the ones that superseded it, and its source rows (e.g. the episodes a fact was distilled from), when the mapping declares them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 behavioral burden and does well: it specifies the two directional chains, the nearest-first ordering, and the conditional on source rows. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or error cases, but it is an accurate and informative behavioral contract.
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 sentence front-loads the core purpose and packs the three output categories and the ordering/conditional into the remaining clauses. No filler or repetition.
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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the key semantics of the result and one important edge condition. It lacks explicit usage guidance and a direct node_id parameter description, but nothing essential to invoking the call is missing.
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 only parameter, node_id, has no schema description, and the tool description never names it directly. However, 'a node' in 'Where a node comes from' makes it clear node_id identifies the node whose provenance is requested, so the description partially compensates for 0% schema coverage.
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 clearly defines the tool's result: the supersession chain (both ancestors and descendants) plus source rows, so an agent can tell provenance from get_node/neighbors. It lacks an imperative verb ('get'/'fetch'), but 'Where a node comes from' is a specific, unambiguous purpose statement.
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 opening phrase 'Where a node comes from' establishes clear use context: call this when lineage or derivation is needed. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so it misses the top score, but the intended usage is not merely implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.