graphStatistics
Counts the total number of nodes and relationships in the graph to assess database size and structure.
Instructions
Count the number of nodes and relationships in the graph
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Counts the total number of nodes and relationships in the graph to assess database size and structure.
Count the number of nodes and relationships in the graph
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states a read operation (count), but doesn't disclose whether the count is real-time, cached, or if it requires permissions. For a zero-parameter tool, more context on performance or scope would help.
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?
A single sentence, perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity. No wasted words.
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?
Given zero parameters, no output schema, and simple purpose, the description is largely adequate. However, it doesn't mention the format or granularity of the counts (e.g., separate numbers for nodes vs. relationships), leaving minor ambiguity.
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 has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so the description doesn't need to add param details. The baseline is 4 due to schema fully covering the (empty) parameter list.
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 clearly states the verb ('Count') and the resources ('nodes and relationships in the graph'). It differentiates from siblings (which filter by genre or explain data) by being a global count tool.
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 getting graph size, but it doesn't explicitly say when to use this vs. siblings (e.g., 'Use this for an overview; use getMoviesByGenre for filtering'). No when-not or alternatives mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Akakinad/genai-mcp-build-custom-tools-typescript'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server