Get a node's DECRYPTED content by name_hash PLUS its connected nodes' content (neighbour depth, default 1; 0–5). Same plan schema as the structure tools. Content scope required (403).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name_hash | No | SHA-256 hex of the entity's normalised name. Send it: without it the plan has no entity filter. | |
| include_neighbours_depth | No | How many hops of connected nodes to include, 0-5 (clamped). Default 1. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the content is DECRYPTED, a content scope is required or a 403 results, and neighbour depth is clamped to 0-5. It stops short of describing the return payload.
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?
Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the decrypted-content purpose and the neighbour expansion lead. It leans on 'Same plan schema as the structure tools', which is terse but contextually efficient.
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 read-only, two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers scope, auth requirement, and depth behavior, but says nothing about the shape of the returned content or how the plan schema maps to results. Adequate but with a clear gap.
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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the name_hash purpose and the depth clamp/default. The description reinforces name_hash usage and the depth default but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get a node's DECRYPTED content by name_hash') plus the extra scope ('PLUS its connected nodes' content'). 'Same plan schema as the structure tools' signals it is the content counterpart to the structure tools, but no sibling is named outright, so an agent must infer the get_node vs get_node_content split from the pattern.
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?
It gives one concrete usage constraint ('Content scope required (403)') and implies this is the decrypted-content variant, but never states when to choose it over get_node or the sibling *_content tools. Usage is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
