Generate a dependency adjacency list and Mermaid diagram for a collection's active work, an initiative's neighborhood, or a tag across collections.
Dependency graph as an adjacency list plus Mermaid: a collection's active work, one initiative's neighbourhood, or a tag (theme) across collections.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Initiative: "collection#n", a bare number, or a path. | |
| tag | No | ||
| collection | No | ||
| include_done | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds useful context by disclosing the return shape (adjacency list plus Mermaid), but says nothing about the effect of include_done, whether the modes can be combined, or the size/limit of the graph returned.
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 dense sentence with the output format front-loaded before the scoping options. Nothing is wasted, though the telegraphic phrasing ('one initiative's neighbourhood') leans on jargon the agent must infer.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description carrying the return format is valuable, but with four parameters and no required ones it leaves the caller guessing about mode selection and include_done semantics. Adequate but with real gaps for a multi-mode tool.
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 coverage is only 25% — just 'ref' is documented there. The description partially compensates by mapping its three modes onto collection, ref (initiative), and tag (theme), but include_done is left entirely unexplained in both places.
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?
Names the artifact (dependency graph), the two output forms (adjacency list plus Mermaid), and the three scoping modes (collection active work, initiative neighbourhood, tag across collections). That is enough to separate it from siblings like list or ready, though the description never states the verb 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 three modes imply when you would reach for this tool, but there is no explicit 'use this instead of X' routing, no statement about whether the modes are mutually exclusive, and no guidance on which sibling to pick for plain listing versus graph traversal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.