SupplyGraph.AI

Enterprise Supply Graph Visualization Agent

sg_visualization

Generates global multi-tier supply-chain graphs providing full visibility into enterprise and product dependencies.

Pricing: {"unit": "credits", "per_run": 264590}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pid`	Yes	Internal company ID for the target enterprise, obtained from the search_company_candidates MCP tool (e.g. a77828f060c866441f2403384b271e63 for Tesla, Inc.).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description does not mention side effects, required permissions, or whether the graph generation modifies any state. It is not contradictory, but without annotation support, it leaves uncertainty about the underlying behavior.

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, focused sentence followed by pricing information. No unnecessary words or repetition, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description gives a good high-level understanding of what the tool does, and since an output schema exists (though not provided), it does not need to detail return values. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when to use it.

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?

The only parameter (pid) is fully described in the schema, and the description does not add extra parameter context. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly defines the tool's function: generating global multi-tier supply-chain graphs for visibility into enterprise and product dependencies. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like search_company_candidates or supply_chain_risk_prediction.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies usage when visualization of supply-chain dependencies is needed, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide strong when-to-use/not-use guidance. It is clear enough for most situations, given the tool's unique purpose.

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

All SupplyGraph.AI tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Most tools are clearly distinct (e.g., tariff_calc vs. tariff_classification, search_* vs. sg_*). However, corporate_exception_report and due_diligence_report both produce company reports with overlapping chapter lists and vague descriptions, creating potential confusion for an agent selecting the appropriate report.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are mixed: search_company_candidates and search_region_candidates follow verb_noun, but others use noun phrases (tariff_calc, due_diligence_report) and some use an 'sg_' prefix (sg_chokepoint, sg_visualization). This lack of a consistent pattern reduces predictability.

Tool Count5/5

With 9 tools, the count is well within the ideal 3-15 range and matches the platform's scope—company search, due diligence, supply chain analysis, and tariff handling. Each tool serves a clear purpose without unnecessary bloat.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers core workflows: company identification (search), deep reporting (due diligence, exception report), supply chain analysis (chokepoint, visualization, risk prediction), and tariff handling (classification, calculation). Minor gaps exist, such as a dedicated tool for fetching a specific company profile, but due_diligence_report largely fills that need.

Resources

Need Help?