queryGeneric /query edge search (combine rel, start, end, node, source).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | No | End node | |
| rel | No | Relation URI (with or without /r/ prefix) | |
| node | No | Match either start or end | |
| limit | No | ||
| start | No | Start node — "/c/en/dog" or "dog" | |
| offset | No | ||
| source | No | Source dataset URI |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| @id | No | Query URI | |
| view | No | API view name | |
| edges | No | Matching edges | |
| @context | No | JSON-LD context |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description confirms it's an edge search but adds minimal behavioral context about combining parameters or response structure. Since annotations are rich, the description is adequate but not enhanced.
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?
The description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every part contributes meaning without redundancy.
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?
Given the rich annotations and presence of an output schema, the description is adequate but lacks explanation of parameter combination behavior and default scoping (e.g., how offset/limit apply). An agent may benefit from more context on usage patterns.
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 71%, and the description lists parameters (rel, start, end, node, source) but does not explain how they combine (e.g., AND/OR logic) or provide additional semantics beyond the schema. Examples in the input schema partially compensate, but the description itself adds limited value.
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?
The description 'Generic /query edge search (combine rel, start, end, node, source)' clearly indicates the tool performs edge searches in a graph, specifying the main parameters. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'lookup' or 'deep_research', which may serve similar purposes.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings such as 'lookup', 'search_within', and 'entity_profile', explicit context on when this low-level 'query' is appropriate would aid selection.
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.