Skip to main content
Glama

trace_reference_chain

Track how concepts connect across linked documents in your manuscript to maintain consistency and verify logical flow.

Instructions

Follow concept through linked documents

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_pathNoPath to manuscript directory (defaults to current directory)
start_fileYesStarting file
end_fileYesTarget file
conceptNoConcept to track

Implementation Reference

  • The primary handler function that implements the 'trace_reference_chain' tool logic. It extracts arguments (start_file, end_file, concept) and returns a structured response with a mock chain analysis.
    private async traceReferenceChain(args: Record<string, unknown>) {
      const startFile = args.start_file as string;
      const endFile = args.end_file as string;
      const concept = args.concept as string | undefined;
    
      return {
        startFile,
        endFile,
        concept,
        chain: [],
        message: "Reference chain analysis",
      };
    }
  • The JSON schema defining the input parameters and structure for the 'trace_reference_chain' tool.
    {
      name: "trace_reference_chain",
      description: "Follow concept through linked documents",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          project_path: { type: "string", description: "Path to manuscript directory (defaults to current directory)" },
          start_file: { type: "string", description: "Starting file" },
          end_file: { type: "string", description: "Target file" },
          concept: { type: "string", description: "Concept to track" },
        },
        required: ["start_file", "end_file"],
      },
  • The dispatch case in the central handleTool method that routes calls to the specific traceReferenceChain handler.
    case "trace_reference_chain":
      return this.traceReferenceChain(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 mentions 'Follow concept through linked documents' but doesn't explain what the tool does operationally (e.g., returns a chain of references, analyzes connections, requires specific file formats). For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in describing behavior beyond the basic action.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence ('Follow concept through linked documents') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it may be overly concise given the tool's complexity, as it doesn't provide enough context for effective use without additional information from the schema.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how it handles linked documents, or behavioral aspects like error conditions. With rich sibling tools and no output schema, more detail is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 all parameters (project_path, start_file, end_file, concept). The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between them or usage nuances. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description 'Follow concept through linked documents' states a general purpose but lacks specificity. It mentions a verb ('Follow') and resource ('linked documents') but doesn't clarify what 'follow' entails (e.g., tracing references, analyzing connections) or how it differs from sibling tools like 'track_concept_evolution' or 'find_related_sections'. The purpose is vague rather than clearly distinct.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for tracking concepts across documents, but it doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'track_concept_evolution', 'find_related_sections'), the lack of differentiation leaves the agent without clear direction.

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