Find the shortest path between two nodes in a FastAPI project, like from an API route to a database table. Uses directed paths first, then falls back to undirected.
Shortest paths between two nodes, e.g. from a route to a table ("POST /chat" → "chat_logs").
Directed paths are tried first; if none exists, direction is ignored and directed is false.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source | Yes | ||
| target | Yes | ||
| max_paths | No | ||
| project_root | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the fallback behavior: directed paths are tried first, and direction is ignored if none exist. However, it does not reveal whether the operation is read-only, what the output structure looks like, or how max_paths affects results.
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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a useful example and a key behavioral caveat. Every sentence earns its place, though it omits some parameter context.
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?
Without annotations or an output schema, the description leaves important gaps: the return format, the meaning of max_paths, and what the 'directed' flag in results represents. It is minimally viable but incomplete for an agent needing to call and interpret this tool correctly.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meanings. The example clarifies source and target by mapping a route to a table, but max_paths and project_root are not explained at all, and their purpose is not inferable from the description.
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 verb and resource: finding shortest paths between two nodes, with a concrete example from a route to a table. It is clear enough to distinguish from sibling tools like get_dependencies or graph_neighbors, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.
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 usage for pathfinding between two connected nodes but gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings such as graph_neighbors, find_references, or impact_analysis. There is no when-not-to-use or alternative comparison.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.