Skip to main content
Glama

get_leaf_tiles

Extract concrete ideas and projects from hierarchical research trees to identify actionable items and organize research workflows.

Instructions

Get all leaf tiles (concrete ideas/projects) from a tree

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
treeIdNoOptional tree ID to filter by

Implementation Reference

  • MCP tool handler for 'get_leaf_tiles' that delegates to treeManager.getLeafTiles and returns JSON stringified result.
    case "get_leaf_tiles": {
      const result = treeManager.getLeafTiles(args.treeId as string | undefined);
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: "text",
            text: JSON.stringify(result, null, 2),
          },
        ],
      };
    }
  • src/index.ts:254-266 (registration)
    Registration of the 'get_leaf_tiles' tool in the TOOLS array, including name, description, and input schema.
    {
      name: "get_leaf_tiles",
      description: "Get all leaf tiles (concrete ideas/projects) from a tree",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          treeId: {
            type: "string",
            description: "Optional tree ID to filter by",
          },
        },
      },
    },
  • Core logic implementation of getLeafTiles in ResearchTreeManager class. Filters and returns all leaf tiles (isLeaf=true), optionally limited to a specific tree.
    getLeafTiles(treeId?: string): Tile[] {
      let tilesToSearch = Array.from(this.tiles.values());
    
      // Filter by tree if specified
      if (treeId) {
        const tree = this.trees.get(treeId);
        if (!tree) {
          throw new Error(`Tree ${treeId} not found`);
        }
        tilesToSearch = this.getTilesInTree(tree.rootTileId);
      }
    
      return tilesToSearch.filter((tile) => tile.isLeaf);
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Get all leaf tiles') but does not describe traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'all' entails (e.g., pagination, return format). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every part contributing to clarity, earning a top score for conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (retrieving multiple items), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error handling, or behavioral details, making it inadequate for full contextual understanding despite the simple parameter schema.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'treeId' documented as 'Optional tree ID to filter by'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('leaf tiles'), specifying they are 'concrete ideas/projects from a tree', which provides a specific purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_tile' or 'get_top_leaves', which might also retrieve tile-related data, so it lacks sibling differentiation for a perfect score.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'get_tile' for individual tiles or 'get_top_leaves' for top-level leaves. It mentions filtering by tree ID but does not clarify scenarios or exclusions, leaving usage context implied at best.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/k-chrispens/tiling-trees-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server