Tresslers Group Intelligence Matrix

query_knowledge_graph

Traverses the multi-hop conceptual knowledge graph across entities (GraphRAG). Free preview available for direct 1-hop adjacencies. Deeper reasoning (2-3 hops) requires x402 settlement.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`depth`	No	Graph traversal hop depth (1 for free preview, 2 to 3 for deep reasoning).
`entity_id`	Yes	Target conceptual entity or dossier slug (e.g., 'Quantum AI', 'ThinkForge').
`payment_proof`	No	Standard x402 signed USDC transaction proof (0x...). Required for multi-hop graph access.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`content`	No

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With empty annotations, the description must fully convey behavior. It discloses that deeper hops require payment and that a free preview exists, but does not cover other aspects like rate limits, permissions, or potential errors. The behavioral context is adequate but not thorough.

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?

Two sentences with no redundant words. First sentence states purpose, second explains monetization structure. Perfectly front-loaded and concise.

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?

Given an output schema exists (not detailed here), the description covers core functionality and pricing. It is complete enough for an agent to decide usage, though it omits potential error states (e.g., invalid payment_proof). Still, it's well-rounded.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context: 'depth' of 1 is free, 2-3 requires payment_proof with x402 signature. This enriches the schema descriptions, justifying a higher score.

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 states the tool traverses a multi-hop knowledge graph (GraphRAG) with specific verb 'traverses' and resource 'knowledge graph'. It distinguishes from siblings like ask_intelligence_rag (which likely answers questions) by emphasizing multi-hop traversal.

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 explicitly defines when to use the free preview (1-hop) vs paid (2-3 hops) via x402 settlement. However, it does not mention alternatives among siblings, such as when to use ask_intelligence_rag instead for single-hop queries.

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

All Tresslers Group Intelligence Matrix 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

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool serves a distinct purpose: Q&A via RAG, updates, listing, graph traversal, full-text reading, and semantic search. No two tools overlap significantly in functionality.

Naming Consistency4/5

All names use snake_case and follow a verb_noun pattern, though some have extra qualifiers (e.g., 'ask_intelligence_rag' vs 'list_dossiers'). The pattern is predictable and readable.

Tool Count5/5

With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for an intelligence retrieval system. Each tool contributes a necessary operation without superfluous clutter.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers core operations for a read-only intelligence repository: listing, searching, reading, asking questions, and tracking updates. Minor metadata features are missing but not critical.

Resources

Need Help?