get_graph_schema_at_versionGet the graph schema as it existed at a specific version/commit. Use get_graph_version_history to find commit SHAs. Useful for comparing schemas across versions or auditing changes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| version | Yes | Commit SHA of the version to retrieve | |
| project_id | Yes | Project ID (UUID) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds meaningful context by specifying that the tool returns the schema as it existed at a specific version, which is a key behavioral trait beyond annotations. It also hints at dependencies (version history lookup).
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 concise sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds a pointer and use cases. No redundant content or filler words are present.
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 read-only tool with two parameters and strong annotations, the description provides sufficient context: it clearly states what the tool does, how to obtain the required version value, and typical use cases. The lack of an output schema is acceptable given the simple nature of the operation.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that 'version' is a commit SHA and pointing to get_graph_version_history to obtain it, which is not explicitly stated in the schema's property description. This helps the agent understand how to populate the required parameter.
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 'Get the graph schema as it existed at a specific version/commit' with a specific verb and resource, and explicitly differentiates from current-schema retrieval by emphasizing the historical aspect. It also references get_graph_version_history for finding commit SHAs, further distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_graph_schema.
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 explicitly directs users to get_graph_version_history to find commit SHAs and names usage scenarios ('comparing schemas across versions or auditing changes'). However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention the alternative for current schema (e.g., get_graph_schema), so it falls short of a 5.
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.