get_graph_schemaGet the graph schema definition of a project. Returns the hierarchical schema with nodes (entities) and relationships. Graph schemas define entity hierarchies and typed relationships — a different format than relational flat-table schemas.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | Project ID (UUID) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that the tool returns hierarchical schema with nodes and relationships, which is useful context beyond annotations, but does not disclose potential response size, versioning behavior, or other operational traits.
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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence adds meaningful clarification about the return format and the distinction from relational schemas, 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 one-parameter read-only tool with annotations covering safety, the description adequately explains what the tool does and returns. However, it does not mention whether this returns the current schema version or how versioning is handled by sibling tools like get_graph_schema_at_version, leaving a minor contextual gap.
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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter (project_id), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics or format details beyond what the schema already provides.
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 action ('Get the graph schema definition') and resource ('of a project'), and specifies the return content as hierarchical schema with nodes and relationships. It differentiates from relational flat-table schemas, but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling 'get_graph_data_schema' or versioning alternatives, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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 implies use for graph schemas rather than relational flat-table schemas, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_schema or get_graph_schema_at_version. No clear context or exclusions are provided beyond the format distinction.
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.