Skip to main content
Glama

Traverse connections graph

traverse_graph
Read-only

Multi-hop graph walk from a start node, with filters. This is the EXACT-enumeration tool: 'every recipe using brown sugar' (start='ingredient:brown-sugar', node_types=['entry']), 'all of Grandma's recipes' (start='author:...', node_types=['entry']), 'the ingredient fingerprint of mom's collection' (start='user:...', depth 2, node_types=['ingredient']). Results are complete up to limit — if truncated, the response says so. Node ids are ':' — e.g. 'entry:' (prefix a search_recipes hit id with 'entry:'), 'ingredient:brown-sugar', 'author:mother-in-law', 'appliance:oven', 'user:'. User-supplied metadata is traversable too: 'tag:' (a shared free-form label) and 'property::' (a shared key=value, e.g. 'property:region:alaska') — every entry carrying that tag/value links to the same node. Recipes with named sub-preparations carry 'component::' nodes (HAS_COMPONENT from the entry; the component links to its own ingredients/steps) — e.g. "what else uses this sauce?" is one hop.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
depthNoMax hops from start (default 1).
limitNoMax nodes visited (default 100).
startYesStart node id (bare recipe ids auto-resolve).
edge_typesNoOnly follow these relationship types.
node_typesNoOnly RETURN nodes of these types (traversal still passes through others).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the transparency burden. It adds exact-enumeration semantics, truncation signaling, node-id conventions, and metadata traversal behavior—far more than the annotations require.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but each segment contributes: core operation, exactness/truncation, ID format, metadata nodes, and component-node nuance. The core definition is front-loaded and the examples compress a lot of usage into a small space.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description should cover result semantics; it states completeness and truncation behavior and gives node-id conventions that help parse results. It does not specify the result shape or fields beyond that, which is a small gap for a complex graph traversal tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the '<type>:<key>' node-id format with real examples, clarifying what node_types controls, and showing valid start strings for depth and node_types usage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first sentence names a specific operation—multi-hop graph walk from a start node with filters—and immediately distinguishes it with 'EXACT-enumeration tool' and concrete examples. This clearly separates it from graph siblings like find_graph_connection, get_graph_node, and get_graph_overview.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear when-to-use context through examples and explicitly frames the tool as exhaustive enumeration. It does not name alternatives or list when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources