Skip to main content
Glama

apply_group_in_a_box_layout

Organizes graph nodes into clustered box layouts to visualize grouped network data clearly and improve analytical insights.

Instructions

Apply group-in-a-box layout to the graph using Graphistry's group_in_a_box_layout API.

Args:
    graph_id (str): The ID of the graph to modify.

Returns:
    dict: { 'graph_id': ..., 'url': ... } with the updated visualization URL.

Example:
    apply_group_in_a_box_layout(graph_id)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
graph_idYes

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function decorated with @mcp.tool(), implementing the core logic: checks graph existence, applies g.group_in_a_box_layout(), updates cache, returns graph_id and plot URL.
    @mcp.tool()
    async def apply_group_in_a_box_layout(graph_id: str) -> Dict[str, Any]:
        """
        Apply group-in-a-box layout to the graph using Graphistry's group_in_a_box_layout API.
    
        Args:
            graph_id (str): The ID of the graph to modify.
    
        Returns:
            dict: { 'graph_id': ..., 'url': ... } with the updated visualization URL.
    
        Example:
            apply_group_in_a_box_layout(graph_id)
        """
        if graph_id not in graph_cache:
            raise ValueError(f"Graph not found: {graph_id}")
        g = graph_cache[graph_id]["graph"]
        g = g.group_in_a_box_layout()
        graph_cache[graph_id]["graph"] = g
        return {"graph_id": graph_id, "url": g.plot(render=False)}
  • The @mcp.tool() decorator registers this function as the MCP tool named 'apply_group_in_a_box_layout', using the function name and type hints for schema.
    @mcp.tool()
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool modifies a graph and returns an updated URL, but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., overwriting existing layouts), rate limits, or error handling. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by Args, Returns, and Example sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose, parameter, and return value, but gaps remain in behavioral details (e.g., mutation risks) and usage context. For a tool with one parameter, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the single parameter 'graph_id' as 'The ID of the graph to modify.' It adds meaning beyond the schema's basic type, clarifying its purpose. With only one parameter, this is sufficient for a high score.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the verb ('apply') and resource ('group-in-a-box layout to the graph'), specifying it uses Graphistry's API. It distinguishes from siblings by naming the specific layout type, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other layout tools like 'apply_ring_categorical_layout'.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like other layout tools (e.g., 'apply_tree_layout'). The description implies usage for modifying graphs but lacks context on prerequisites, such as needing an existing graph ID from tools like 'get_graph_ids'.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/graphistry/graphistry-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server