Retrieve the local knowledge graph around a project to reveal related nodes and edges. Filter by asset types or tags to focus on relevant connections.
Return the local knowledge graph around a project (nodes + edges). Optional type filter to limit which asset types appear.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | Filter by tags | |
| types | No | Filter by asset types | |
| projectId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.35.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states it returns nodes+edges and allows filtering. It does not mention that the operation is read-only, any side effects, authorization needs, or performance implications. A more complete description would add safety traits.
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?
Two sentences, zero waste. Every phrase contributes meaning: purpose, what is returned, optional filtering. Well-front-loaded.
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?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It lacks usage guidelines, behavioral transparency, and full parameter coverage. The return format (what nodes/edges look like) is not described, which is needed when no output schema exists.
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 coverage is 67% (projectId lacks description). The description adds 'Optional type filter to limit which asset types appear,' covering the types parameter but not tags. This adds marginal value over the schema but does not fully compensate for the missing projectId 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 clearly states the tool returns a local knowledge graph (nodes + edges) around a project, with optional type filtering. This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like wiki_get_page or wiki_search, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other graph-related tools.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., wiki_get_flow_context, wiki_get_project_context). The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or preferred scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.