Waggle-mcp

window_graph_viz

Export the context-window graph as an interactive HTML visualization. Nodes represent chat/session windows; edges show overlap, supersession, temporal order, or shared scope.

Instructions

Export the context-window graph as an interactive HTML visualization. Each node is a chat/session window and edges show overlap, supersession, temporal order, or shared scope.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "window_graph_viz"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`project`	No	Optional project/repository scope whose context-window graph should be exported.
`output_path`	No	Optional destination HTML file path. If omitted, Waggle chooses an export path.
`include_physics`	No	Whether the visualization should use physics-based node layout.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.0.10Apr 25, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It describes the output and graph structure but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or whether it is read-only. A 3 is adequate given the simplicity.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. Front-loaded with the core action and format, followed by a clarifying sentence on node/edge meaning.

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?

No output schema, but parameters are well-documented. However, the description does not differentiate from sibling tools like export_graph_html, which could cause confusion. Adequate but not complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Input schema has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. Description does not add any additional meaning beyond the parameter descriptions already present.

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?

Clearly states the action ('Export') and the specific resource ('context-window graph') as interactive HTML visualization. Also explains node and edge semantics, distinguishing from sibling graph tools.

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 on when to use this tool vs siblings like export_graph_html or export_context_bundle. Does not mention prerequisites or when not to use.

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