SwiftKG MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_node

Fetch a Swift code node by its stable ID and get a Markdown summary. Optionally include outgoing edges and incoming callers for context.

Instructions

Fetch a single Swift node by its stable ID and render as Markdown.

Node IDs follow the pattern <kind>:<module_path>:<qualname>, e.g. cls:Sources/Networking/Client.swift:HTTPClient or meth:Sources/Networking/Client.swift:HTTPClient.send.

:param node_id: Stable node identifier. :param include_edges: If True, append outgoing edges and incoming callers. :return: Markdown-formatted node summary.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "node_id": "<node_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_node"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`node_id`	Yes
`include_edges`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description explains the stable ID format, the Markdown output, and the meaning of include_edges. It stops short of describing error/not-found behavior, but core runtime behavior is clear.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a compact ID pattern and clear parameter docs. No vague filler or redundant restating.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The essential details for calling the tool are present: parameters, ID format, output form, and edge behavior. The only missing context is explicit routing guidance among sibling tools.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Even though schema coverage is 0%, the description fully documents both parameters: node_id with a concrete pattern and examples, and include_edges with its effect. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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?

States a precise action: fetch a single Swift node by stable ID and render as Markdown. The ID pattern and examples further distinguish it from listing or searching tools.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The intended use is implied: when you have a stable node ID and need one node as Markdown. It does not explicitly compare against siblings like find_node, list_nodes, or query_codebase.

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