Retrieve the full chain of parent departments for a given department in an organization to clarify its reporting structure and position in the hierarchy.
Get the ancestors of a department in an organization
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Department ID | |
| organizationId | Yes | Organization ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.60Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"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 burden, but it only restates what the tool does. It does not disclose ordering, whether the department itself is included, depth, authorization needs, or error behavior. 'Get' implies read-only but adds little beyond the name.
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 filler or redundancy. It states the verb and resource directly, making it appropriately concise for a simple read operation.
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?
This is a low-complexity tool with only two parameters and no output schema. However, the description leaves ambiguity about the return format, ordering, and edge cases such as whether the root department is included. It is minimally viable but lacks richer context.
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 100%, with both 'Department ID' and 'Organization ID' already documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 and resource: 'Get the ancestors of a department in an organization.' It clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_organization_department_info and list_organization_departments.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The intended use is only implied by the tool's purpose; no explicit when/when-not context is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.