Find Maven artifacts that depend on a specified artifact by group ID and artifact ID. Specify a version to narrow results.
Find artifacts that depend on a specific artifact
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number for pagination | |
| limit | No | Maximum results to return | |
| version | No | Specific version to search for (optional) | |
| group_id | Yes | Target group ID | |
| artifact_id | Yes | Target artifact ID | |
| items_per_page | No | Items per page |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It only states the query intent and does not mention pagination behavior, result format, whether version is optional, or how dependent artifacts are scoped (direct vs transitive).
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, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, but it is minimal enough that it lacks auxiliary context without becoming unnecessarily long.
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 six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-sentence description is insufficient. It omits how pagination works, what the response contains, and how this tool relates to sibling dependency tools.
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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning; importantly, it does not clarify the redundant pagination parameters page, limit, and items_per_page, but the schema already documents each parameter.
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 clear verb and resource: 'Find artifacts that depend on a specific artifact.' It communicates the reverse-dependency concept, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_dependencies or get_dependency_tree.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like get_dependencies and get_dependency_tree, the agent must infer the opposite-direction semantics from the tool name and description rather than being told.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.