Skip to main content
Glama

Wafergraph MCP

by com.wafergraph

Find paths between two companies

find_paths_between

Every documented supply path between two companies, following supplier->customer edges (e.g. 'how does NVIDIA actually depend on Shin-Etsu'). Searches up to max_depth hops in one or both directions and returns each path as an ordered list of companies, shortest first. Capped for combinatorial safety; absence of a path means undocumented, not disproven — see edge_coverage.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYesTarget company id, name, or ticker.
fromYesStarting company id, name, or ticker.
limitNoMax number of paths to return (1-50, default 10).
directionNo'downstream': paths where `from` supplies (directly or via intermediaries) to `to`. 'upstream': paths where `from` depends on `to` as a supplier. 'either': search both directions and label each path.either
max_depthNoMaximum path length in hops (edges). Default 3, hard-capped at 4 to bound the search.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: 'capped for combinatorial safety', 'shortest first', and that absence means undocumented rather than disproven. This is sufficient for a read-only query tool.

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 an example and no fluff. Every word adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the edge model, direction, limit, depth cap, and how to interpret results, leaving no critical gaps.

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?

The schema covers all 5 parameters (100% coverage), but the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema, such as the hard cap on max_depth and the meaning of direction values, and warns about interpretation of missing paths.

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 verb ('find'), the resource ('supply path between two companies'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'find_common_suppliers' and 'get_supply_chain' by specifying directionality and path enumeration.

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 provides context for when to use (e.g., querying supply dependencies) and an example. It does not explicitly list when not to use or compare to all siblings, but the context is clear and well-differentiated.

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

All Wafergraph MCP toolsInspect
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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: analyzing portfolio exposure, comparing companies, finding chokepoints, getting company details, country exposure, deals, segments, supply chain walk, and company search. No overlap in functionality.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (e.g., 'get_company', 'search_companies', 'find_chokepoints'). The convention is uniform and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

9 tools is well-scoped for a specialized supply chain analysis server. Each tool serves a distinct query or analysis need without being too few or too many.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers core operations: search, detail, comparison, portfolio analysis, chokepoint identification, country exposure, deals, and supply chain graph traversal. Minor gaps like historical trends or alerts exist but do not hinder primary use cases.

Resources