get_graph_nodeGet a specific node by its entity_id from a deployed graph project. Returns all node properties including created_at and updated_at timestamps.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entity_id | Yes | The node's entity_id | |
| project_id | Yes | Project ID (UUID) | |
| entity_type | Yes | Entity key (e.g., 'person', 'concept') | |
| environment | No | Environment: staging or production (default: staging) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description goes beyond annotations by stating it returns all node properties including created_at/updated_at timestamps and only works on deployed graph projects, which adds useful behavioral context without contradicting the annotations.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and a concise summary of return value. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
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?
For a simple get-by-id tool, the description covers the action, return content, and a deployment prerequisite, which partially compensates for the lack of an output schema. Minor gaps around error handling and entity_type semantics exist, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.
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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-related detail beyond restating entity_id and the notion of a deployed project; it does not explain environment behavior or entity_type nuances, so no higher score is warranted.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves a specific node by entity_id from a deployed graph project, which is a distinct action from sibling tools like list_graph_nodes or search_graph_nodes. It also specifies what is returned (all node properties with timestamps), fully clarifying its purpose.
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?
The description conveys the specific use case of fetching a single node by entity_id from a deployed project, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as list_graph_nodes or get_node_relationships, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.
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.
Most tools are clearly differentiated by domain (project vs graph_project) and action (create, get, list, delete). The main ambiguity is get_project vs get_project_info, which both claim to return detailed project information. Otherwise tool boundaries are clear.
The server follows a strong verb_noun convention, with parallel naming for graph and non-graph tools (create_project/create_graph_project, deploy_staging/deploy_graph_staging). Minor deviations include bulk_create_graph_nodes and fulltext_search_graph, but patterns remain predictable.
48 tools is a heavy surface, even when accounting for the two parallel product domains (relational and graph). Many tools are near-duplicates across domains, and the count exceeds the 25-tool threshold that feels manageable. It would benefit from consolidation or sub-servers.
Both project types have full life-cycle coverage: create, schema management, deployment, rollback, and deletion, plus graph data operations including bulk, search, and traversal. Minor gaps exist, such as no update_graph_relationship and the redundant get_project/get_project_info pair, but agents can accomplish core workflows.