Trace one code relationship in a Python/JS/TS repository by pattern and target to find callers, callees, imports, subclasses, definitions, or covering tests.
Trace one relationship. Patterns: callers_of, callees_of, imports_of, imported_by, tests_for, subclasses_of, defines, defined_in.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | Yes | ||
| pattern | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 but only says 'Trace one relationship.' The verb 'trace' implies a read operation, but the description does not explicitly state safety, side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits.
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 brief and front-loaded with the core action, followed by a compact pattern list. It avoids wasted words, though the pattern list duplicates the schema enum rather than adding structure or explanation.
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 two required parameters, no annotations, and an output schema. The description fails to explain what 'target' should contain and offers no usage context or behavioral details, leaving significant gaps for an agent to call the tool correctly.
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 parameter meaning. It repeats the pattern enum values exactly as they appear in the schema and says nothing about the 'target' parameter, adding no semantic value and leaving a required parameter completely undocumented.
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 verb ('Trace') and a resource ('relationship'), and the pattern list clarifies the kinds of relationships available. However, it does not explain what is being traced from or to, leaving the core purpose somewhat vague, and it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like get_impact_radius or search_nodes.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only lists pattern values, which are already in the schema, and does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.