impactIdentify every node a given node blocks transitively, returning each successor ID on its own line. Use to trace downstream impact in a dependency graph.
Transitive successors over blocks edges: every node the given node blocks from starting, returned as one id per line. deps is the upstream mirror.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | target node id, e.g. W-12, G-03 or D-40 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Input schema / properties / id / descriptionPrevious value: -"node id"New value: +"target node id, e.g. W-12, G-03 or D-40"v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds genuine behavioral value beyond these: the traversal semantics (transitive, following blocking edges from the given node) and the output format (one id per line). No contradiction with annotations.
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, zero filler. The core computation is front-loaded, the output format is stated compactly, and the sibling contrast ('deps is the upstream mirror') earns its place by disambiguating the tool. Nothing redundant.
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, read-only query tool with 100% schema coverage and full safety annotations, the description covers what it computes, the starting node, the output format, and the primary sibling. A minor gap is the unexplained domain jargon 'blocks edges', which an agent unfamiliar with the model would have to infer.
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% — the schema already documents the single 'id' parameter with examples. The description adds a small semantic link by clarifying that id is the traversal starting point ('the given node blocks from starting'), but this is marginal enrichment over an already well-documented parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 computation — transitive successors over block edges — and clarifies the resource ('every node the given node blocks from starting') and output format ('one id per line'). It also names the sibling tool 'deps' as the upstream mirror, so an agent can distinguish impact from deps 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?
The description gives clear selection context by stating that 'deps is the upstream mirror', implying impact is the downstream counterpart and routing the agent to the correct sibling for upstream queries. However, this is implied rather than explicit ('use impact when you need downstream, deps when upstream'), and no other alternatives are addressed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.