What the graph already knows: counts per node label, every service with its owner and dependencies, teams and flags. Call this before mapping so you update instead of duplicating.
What the graph already knows: counts per node label, every service with its owner and dependencies, teams and flags. Call this before mapping so you update instead of duplicating.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and locality are covered. The description adds value by stating what the payload contains and the duplication-avoidance purpose, but says nothing about result size, pagination, or freshness for what is presumably a large graph-wide read. That leaves real gaps for an overview tool.
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: the first front-loads what is returned, the second gives the call-timing advice. No filler, though the leading clause is slightly ornamental where a verb-led sentence would be sharper.
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?
With no output schema, the description must carry return-value meaning, which it partly does by enumerating the entity types. However, for a graph-wide overview it omits scale/shape concerns (volume, truncation, whether results are summarized or exhaustive) that an agent needs to use the output correctly.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to specify; baseline is 4. The description appropriately spends its space on output expectations instead of inventing argument guidance.
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 enumerates the returned inventory (per-label node counts, services with owner and dependencies, teams, flags), which tells an agent exactly what this resource is. It lacks a crisp action verb, and 'What the graph already knows' is slightly abstract, but the concrete content list keeps it from being vague relative to siblings like query_graph.
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?
Directly instructs 'Call this before mapping so you update instead of duplicating,' giving a clear trigger and rationale. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., query_graph vs. upsert_service), but the intended position in a workflow is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.