Retrieve a component's dependency graph to see which components it uses and which use it. Analyze relationships and assess change impact.
Get component dependency graph: which components a component uses, and which components use it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| depth | No | ||
| direction | No | ||
| componentName | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the graph nature but does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether depth or direction parameters affect the result in a way that might have side effects, or whether there are any performance/limit considerations. Since no annotations exist, this gap is significant.
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 one concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes a clarifying explanation of the two directions. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for a graph-returning tool.
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?
Given that there is no output schema, the description should hint at the return format (e.g., a graph structure) to help the agent interpret the result. It doesn't. Additionally, with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description fails to explain how the parameters interact. The description provides a high-level purpose but omits critical details for correct invocation and result interpretation.
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%, meaning the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. The description explains the 'dependencies' and 'dependents' direction concept generally, but it does not explicitly map to the 'direction' parameter or clarify how 'depth' affects the traversal. It adds some value beyond the schema but is insufficient given the low coverage.
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 ('Get') and resource ('component dependency graph'), and further clarifies the semantics by explaining both directions: which components a component uses, and which components use it. This is clear and distinct from siblings like get_component_usage, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling it differs from.
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 implies when to use this tool (when needing dependency information) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling to choose instead. The sibling list includes get_component_usage, which likely overlaps, but the description doesn't differentiate. This leaves the agent to infer the usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.