relatedFind outgoing and incoming links for a 1C:Enterprise syntax help page by ID to explore connected documentation.
Связанные страницы (исходящие и входящие ссылки) по id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Идентификатор страницы (filename или числовой id). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.14.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Идентификатор страницы"New value: +"Идентификатор страницы (filename или числовой id)."Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+}v0.10.0Does 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 implies a read that returns both link directions, but says nothing about permissions, whether results are paginated or truncated, or how the two link sets are ordered or combined.
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 short sentence with no filler, and the resource is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the extreme terseness trades away usability for brevity.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and this is a simple one-parameter read tool. Still, an agent gets no signal on usage context or on how this differs from sibling retrieval tools like get_page and hierarchy.
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 coverage is 100% and the single id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including that it accepts a filename or numeric id. The description's 'по id' adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?
States a specific resource and scope: related pages, defined as outgoing and incoming links, keyed by id. That distinguishes it from get_page and hierarchy without opening schemas, though it never names a sibling explicitly.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer get_page or hierarchy instead, and no prerequisites. The agent must infer the use case purely from the noun phrase.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.