Retrieve a Maven artifact's complete dependency tree using group ID, artifact ID, and version. Optionally limit depth and summarize large content.
Get complete dependency tree for an artifact
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| version | Yes | Maven version | |
| group_id | Yes | Maven group ID | |
| max_depth | No | Maximum depth to show | |
| artifact_id | Yes | Maven artifact ID | |
| summarize_large_content | No | Summarize large content automatically |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It calls the tree 'complete' but the schema defaults max_depth to 3 and summarize_large_content to true, meaning results may be truncated or summarized. This tension is not addressed.
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. It is appropriately terse, though its brevity is achieved partly by omitting useful behavioral and comparative context.
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, no annotations, and a close sibling get_dependencies, this description is underspecified. It does not explain return shape, the effect of max_depth, summarization behavior, or when to choose this tool over alternatives.
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 parameters are already documented meaningfully. The description adds almost no parameter-level detail beyond naming the artifact; it does not explain how max_depth affects the 'complete' claim or what summarize_large_content does.
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?
States a clear verb and resource: 'Get complete dependency tree for an artifact'. The Maven coordinates are visible in the schema. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling get_dependencies, but 'tree' implies recursive structure versus a flat dependency list.
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 when-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternative tools are mentioned. The agent is left to infer when this is preferable to get_dependencies or list_artifacts. The word 'complete' implies a full traversal, but that is not made explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.