Skip to main content
Glama

find_orphaned_sections

Identify sections lacking incoming links in markdown manuscripts to maintain document connectivity and improve navigation.

Instructions

Find sections with no incoming links

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_pathNoPath to manuscript directory (defaults to current directory)
scopeNoFile scope pattern

Implementation Reference

  • The primary handler function executing the tool logic. It calls checkLinks on WritersAid and returns a structured response identifying orphaned sections (currently placeholder).
    private async findOrphanedSections(_args: Record<string, unknown>) {
      await this.writersAid.checkLinks({});
    
      return {
        orphanedSections: [],
        message: "Analysis complete - check links for orphaned content",
      };
    }
  • The input schema and metadata definition for the find_orphaned_sections tool.
    {
      name: "find_orphaned_sections",
      description: "Find sections with no incoming links",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          project_path: { type: "string", description: "Path to manuscript directory (defaults to current directory)" },
          scope: { type: "string", description: "File scope pattern" },
        },
      },
    },
  • Registration of the tool handler within the central handleTool switch statement.
    case "find_orphaned_sections":
      return this.findOrphanedSections(args);
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks details on how it behaves: e.g., whether it's read-only or has side effects, what permissions are required, how results are returned, or any rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity of analyzing links and identifying orphaned sections, with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'sections' refer to, how 'incoming links' are defined, or what the return format looks like, leaving key contextual gaps for effective tool use.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters ('project_path' and 'scope') with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning or context about these parameters beyond what the schema provides, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description 'Find sections with no incoming links' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('sections'), and it distinguishes what it does (identifying orphaned sections based on link analysis). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_broken_links' or 'analyze_link_graph', which keeps it from a perfect score.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'find_broken_links' and 'analyze_link_graph' that might involve link analysis, there's no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate or what prerequisites might be needed, leaving usage unclear.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/xiaolai/claude-writers-aid-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server