Find a shortest declared interaction path within a mapped UI flow to identify the steps needed to reach a target, noting the path is declared and not proof of passage.
Find a shortest declared interaction path within a mapped flow. A path is not proof it passed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | ||
| run | No | ||
| flow | Yes | ||
| from | No | ||
| project | Yes | ||
| revision | No | ||
| currentRevision | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context with 'A path is not proof it passed,' warning the agent not to treat a declared path as observed runtime evidence — a meaningful epistemic caveat that goes beyond the annotations.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and the second sentence is a high-value caveat rather than filler. No sentence is wasted.
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?
For a 7-parameter, no-output-schema tool with 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin: it never explains the run/revision/currentRevision selectors or what the returned path actually contains. The epistemic caveat is helpful but does not compensate for the missing parameter context.
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% across 7 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It only implicitly gestures at flow and from/to nodes and says nothing about run, revision, currentRevision, or project — leaving several parameters undocumented in both the schema and the description.
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 specific verb ('Find') and a specific resource ('shortest declared interaction path within a mapped flow'), which is far more precise than the bare name trace_journey. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as get_flow_evidence or compare_flow, so it stops short of a 5.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named as an alternative. The phrase 'declared interaction path' hints that this differs from evidence-oriented siblings, but the agent must infer that contrast rather than being told it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.