Skip to main content
Glama
h9-tec

model-family-tree

by h9-tec
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

lineage

Trace a Hugging Face model's ancestry up to its root base model and see how many descendants it has, including relation type and parent counts at each hop.

Instructions

Ancestry of one Hugging Face model: the chain of declared base models up to the root, plus how many descendants the model itself has.

Walks `base_model` metadata live from the Hub (first parent at each step; merges list all
parents in `parents`). Each hop carries the relation (finetune, adapter, quantized, merge)
and the parent's descendant counts from the nightly build.

Example: lineage(id="unsloth/Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct")

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
max_depthNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does well: it discloses a live walk of `base_model` metadata from the Hub, first-parent-at-each-step semantics, that merges expose all parents in `parents`, that each hop carries a relation type (finetune, adapter, quantized, merge), and that descendant counts come from a nightly build. Auth requirements and rate limits remain undisclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, followed by mechanics and a concrete example in three short blocks. Little waste, though the merge/parents parenthetical is dense.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the return chain contains (hops with relation and descendant counts) and where the data comes from. The only real gap is the undocumented `max_depth` behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It illustrates `id` with a concrete example, which is useful, but `max_depth` (default 12) is never explained in the description even though it governs how far up the chain the walk goes.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific resource and scope: the ancestry chain of a Hugging Face model plus its own descendant count. An agent can tell this is about upward lineage rather than listing children, though sibling names (children, family) are never cited to sharpen the boundary.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied via the example call `lineage(id="...")`. There is no statement of when to prefer this over `children` or `family`, nor any prerequisite or exclusion, so the agent must infer routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools