Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Krusgraph

by com.krusgraph
OverviewDiscussions(1)Admin

Describe a GraphQL API

describe_backend
Read-only

Describes an API for GraphQL item in the names a query uses: types, list query fields, fields and relationships. Requires workspace and an API that create_backend has created (list_sources lists them). Returns JSON {types: [{type, query_field, source, fields, relationships, by_key, writable}], how_to_query}. Read from the item's definition, so introspection can be off; changes nothing. query_graphql runs a query. Errors: {error, kind, hint}.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "workspace": "<workspace>",
      "api": "<api>"
    },
    "name": "describe_backend"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
apiYesAPI for GraphQL item created by create_backend, by name or id.
workspaceYesFabric workspace, name or id.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / api / description
      Added value: +"API for GraphQL item created by create_backend, by name or id."
    • addedInput schema / properties / workspace / description
      Added value: +"Fabric workspace, name or id."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, yet the description still adds real signal: it reads from the item's definition so GraphQL introspection may be disabled, and it 'changes nothing'. It also documents the error envelope {error, kind, hint}, which no structured field provides.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: purpose, prerequisites, return shape, read semantics, alternative, and error format in roughly 60 words with no filler. It is telegraphic to the point of being slightly run-on in the first sentence, which is the only structural weakness.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Covers prerequisites, the alternative executor, the read-only-from-definition caveat, and the error shape. Although an output schema exists, the inline summary of the returned keys is a short clarification rather than redundant padding, and nothing an agent needs before calling is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are self-documenting, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description reinforces provenance ('an API that create_backend has created', list_sources enumerates them) but that is already stated in the schema's api description. No format or id-vs-name guidance is added beyond what the schema says.

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?

States a specific verb (describes) and resource (a GraphQL API's types, list query fields, fields, relationships), which is far more precise than the title alone. It implicitly separates itself from query_graphql by naming it as the executor of queries. The phrasing 'in the names a query uses' is slightly garbled and costs it a point on crispness, but the intent remains recoverable.

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?

Gives the prerequisite explicitly: an API that create_backend has created, with list_sources as the discovery path. It also points at query_graphql as the alternative for actually running a query. It stops short of an explicit 'do not use this to execute queries / for non-GraphQL sources' exclusion, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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

All Krusgraph toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources