codetopo_ancestorsFind which nodes transitively reach a given node via calls and imports to trace code dependencies and callers.
Nodes from which a node is transitively reachable over calls and imports edges.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node | Yes | Node id to walk up from. | |
| limit | No | Maximum members to return. Default 20. | |
| expand | No | Return full node objects instead of ids. Default false. | |
| db_path | Yes | Path to the index database. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is to add what they cannot. It does: the traversal is transitive and restricted to calls and imports edges, which tells the agent exactly what relationships are followed. It omits any mention that results are capped or truncated, which would be useful for a walk that can explode on cyclic graphs.
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?
A single sentence with zero filler that front-loads the core relationship definition. Nothing redundant and nothing that could be trimmed without losing meaning.
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?
With no output schema, the description should hint at what comes back and how it is bounded. It explains the traversal but not that results are limited by `limit`, that `expand` changes the return shape, or what happens on cycles in a bidirectional graph, leaving real gaps for a graph-walk tool.
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 100%, so db_path, node, limit (default 20) and expand (default false) are all already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 gives a precise graph-theoretic definition of the operation: nodes from which the target is transitively reachable, scoped to calls and imports edges. That distinguishes it well from codetopo_descendants (the inverse walk) even though it never names the sibling explicitly. It is clear but relies on the title for the verb.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this versus codetopo_descendants, codetopo_blast_radius, or codetopo_neighborhood, all of which operate on the same graph. Usage is only inferable from the direction of the relationship, which is weak guidance for a family of twelve sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.