Create a UML Trace dependency between source and target elements in SysML models to establish traceability links. Specify source and target IDs to add the dependency.
Create a UML Trace dependency from source to target (StandardProfile).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source_id | Yes | ||
| target_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that it creates a Trace dependency, implying a write operation, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites existing traces), required permissions, reversibility, or validation behavior. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, making it instantly scannable. It is appropriately concise for a simple create 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?
Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description does not mention return values, success/failure behavior, or prerequisites like element existence. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this is incomplete. An agent cannot anticipate what happens if the source or target is invalid, or whether the operation is idempotent. The description is minimal and does not cover these contextual needs.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It says 'from source to target', which maps source_id to source and target_id to target, but this only restates the parameter names. It does not explain what these IDs refer to (e.g., element UUIDs), how to obtain them, or any constraints. Minimal added value beyond the schema.
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 states the verb ('Create') and the specific resource ('UML Trace dependency') with direction (from source to target) and mentions StandardProfile. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_dependency or add_satisfy, which create different relationship types. An agent can infer exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.
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 implies usage: when you want to create a Trace dependency. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives like add_dependency or add_derive. There is no 'use this for X, use that for Y' guidance, leaving some inference required. This is adequate but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.