Materialize a validated graph spec into a real graph on the caller's account — nodes reference each other by caller-chosen string refs, edges wire refs, entry names the entry node. Rejects invalid topology with the schema's own errors. Returns the new graph id plus its canvasUrl.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| edges | No | ||
| entry | No | ref of the node new runs start at | |
| nodes | Yes | Each node needs a caller-chosen `ref` that edges and `entry` reference | |
| description | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses validation behavior ('rejects invalid topology with the schema's own errors') and the return payload (graph id plus canvasUrl), but says nothing about permissions, side effects on existing graphs, or limits.
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?
Two dense sentences with zero filler; the core action is front-loaded and the ref/edge/entry linkage and return value follow in priority order.
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?
With no output schema, the description correctly fills the return-value gap (id plus canvasUrl), and with no annotations it covers validation failure mode. It stops short of prerequisites and permission context for a creation tool with nested node/edge payloads.
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 coverage is only 40% across 5 params, so the description must compensate and partially does: it explains the caller-chosen `ref` linkage between nodes, edges, and `entry`. It adds nothing about `name`, `description`, edge `kind`/`condition`, or node `role`/`model` semantics.
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: materialize a validated graph spec into a real graph on the caller's account. The mechanics (refs, edges wiring refs, entry naming the start node) make it clearly distinct from siblings like instantiate_template, draft_node, and update_graph_nodes.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: the phrase 'validated graph spec' hints you must already have a spec in hand, and the contrast with instantiate_template (template-based creation) is detectable but never made explicit. No when-not-to-use or alternative routing is provided.
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.