rootcause-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

rc_get_why_tree

Retrieve the complete 5-Why analysis tree for a session to support root cause analysis in clinical incident investigation.

Instructions

Get the complete Why Tree (5-Why analysis chain) for a session. Shows all Why questions and answers in hierarchical format.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "session_id": "<session_id>"
    },
    "name": "rc_get_why_tree"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`session_id`	Yes	The session ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 26, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It describes a read operation (get, shows) and implies no side effects, but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or discuss permissions. This is acceptable for a simple retrieval but not fully transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences that front-load the core action and output. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or extraneous information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the single parameter, no output schema, and low complexity, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns. The sibling list adds context, but the description alone is adequate for a simple retrieval tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The parameter 'session_id' is already described in the schema with full coverage. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter format or constraints beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it gets the complete Why Tree for a session, specifying the format (5-Why analysis chain, hierarchical). This differentiates it from sibling tools like rc_get_fishbone or rc_export_why_tree.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rc_get_fishbone or rc_get_hfacs_framework. The context implies it is for viewing the Why Tree but lacks exclusions or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.