Find referenced theorems in a paper's dependency graph by providing a theorem ID, with optional recursive traversal to reveal deeper dependencies.
Return theorem-like nodes referenced by the given theorem.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| recursive | No | ||
| theorem_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys a read-only 'return' operation but omits the meaning of the recursive parameter, the direction of traversal, and any side effects or error conditions. The phrase 'theorem-like nodes referenced by' does clarify the edge direction, but significant behavioral variability is left to inference.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant content. It states the action and resource immediately and uses every word effectively, even though brevity sacrifices behavioral detail addressed in other dimensions.
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?
Although an output schema exists and can explain return values, the description omits the meaning of the recursive flag and does not distinguish this tool from workspace_get_dependencies. These gaps are important for correct invocation, and the schema's zero parameter descriptions do not fill them.
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 for the bare parameter names. It only clarifies theorem_id as 'the given theorem'; the recursive parameter remains completely unexplained despite having a default value. This is insufficient compensation for the low schema coverage.
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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and clearly identifies the resource ('theorem-like nodes referenced by the given theorem'). It is unambiguous about the operation, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling workspace_get_dependencies tool.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as workspace_get_dependencies or get_dependency_diagnostics. The presence of a workspace-scoped sibling implies a possible selection criterion, but that context is not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.