Join only explicit IPC/RPC endpoint evidence across artifacts to link related processes and sessions, keeping observed, static-candidate, and unresolved relations separate.
Join only explicit IPC/RPC endpoint evidence across artifacts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| names | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that only explicit IPC/RPC evidence is joined across artifacts, which is useful, but omits whether the tool is read-only, what authentication or permissions are required, pagination behavior despite a page parameter, and what the result looks like.
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?
It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Still, the extreme brevity leaves the definition under-specified for a tool with required and paging inputs.
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?
The tool has no annotations, no output schema, 0% schema description coverage, and two parameters including a required array. The description does not explain inputs, output, usage context, or how it differs from similar retrieval tools, leaving the agent without enough information to invoke it confidently.
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% and the description does not explain the 'names' or 'page' parameters at all. With two undocumented parameters, the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter semantics.
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 states a specific action, 'Join', and a narrow evidence domain, 'explicit IPC/RPC endpoint evidence across artifacts'. However, it never explicitly says it retrieves process relations, and it does not differentiate itself from close siblings such as get_rpc_trace, get_call_relations, or get_process_participants.
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 phrase 'only explicit IPC/RPC endpoint evidence' implies a scope constraint, but there is no when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives. An agent must infer usage from the name and sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.