get_entity_graph_contextReturn an entity together with its direct relations (incoming and outgoing), the neighbor entities at the other end of those relations, and its most recent episodes, in one call.
Args:
entity_id: UUID of the entity.
episode_limit: Number of recent episodes to include (0-50; 0 omits
them).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entity_id | Yes | ||
| episode_limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully discloses the composite shape of the result but adds no auth, rate-limit, or pagination/truncation context.
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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and enumerates the return payload precisely, followed by a compact docstring-style Args block. No wasted sentences, though the Args section is slightly redundant with a 2-param schema.
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?
With no output schema, the description does the work of describing what comes back (relations, neighbors, episodes), which is what an agent needs to decide relevance. It is complete enough for a read-only composite fetch, missing only guidance on how it relates to the single-purpose siblings.
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 0%, so the description carries the param burden, and it does: entity_id is specified as a UUID (beyond the schema's bare 'string') and episode_limit gets a range (0-50), default behavior, and the meaning of 0. It compensates well for the coverage gap, though the arg formatting is terse.
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 states a specific composite resource set: the entity, its incoming and outgoing direct relations, neighbor entities, and recent episodes. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the narrower siblings (get_entity, get_entity_relations, get_entity_neighbors, get_entity_episodes) via 'in one call' but never names them.
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?
Usage is only implied by 'in one call', which suggests this is a bundle alternative to the separate get_entity_* tools, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative. An agent must infer the tradeoff itself.
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.