grafeo-mcp

Official

by GrafeoDB

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Hybrid

update_edge

Modify properties of an existing edge. Choose to merge changes with current properties or replace them entirely.

Instructions

Update properties on an existing edge.

Use this tool when: you need to modify an edge's properties after creation. Do NOT use for: changing the edge type (delete and recreate), creating new edges (use create_edge), or deleting edges (use delete_edge).

Args: edge_id: The ID of the edge to update. properties: Key-value properties to set. merge: If True (default), merge with existing properties. If False, replace all properties.

Returns: JSON with the updated edge's id, source_id, target_id, edge_type, and properties.

Examples: update_edge(0, {"weight": 2.5}) update_edge(0, {"since": 2024}, merge=False)

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": {
      "edge_id": "<edge_id>",
      "properties": "<properties>"
    },
    "name": "update_edge"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`edge_id`	Yes
`properties`	Yes
`merge`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0May 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Without annotations, the description discloses the merge behavior (merge vs replace), return structure, and that it updates existing properties. It could mention error handling or permissions, but it's sufficient for a mutation tool.

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 description is concise: one purpose line, usage guidelines, Args, Returns, and Examples. No redundant information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The description covers parameters, return shape, and usage examples. An output schema exists, but the description adds context. Given the tool's simplicity, it is complete.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description explains all three parameters: edge_id, properties (key-value), merge (with default and behavior). Examples clarify usage beyond schema titles.

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?

The description specifies 'Update properties on an existing edge,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from create_edge and delete_edge by stating what not to use it for.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly states when to use it ('you need to modify an edge's properties after creation') and when not to (changing edge type, creating, deleting), naming alternatives.

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