Reads explicit graph data from the shared SQLite memory store for compatibility use; prefer bounded, project-aware search when large results are a concern.
Compatibility tool backed by the same v2 SQLite store. Explicit graph reads may be large; prefer search_memories for bounded project-aware retrieval.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that — a compatibility layer over the v2 SQLite store and a warning that results may be large — but it does not say what the payload looks like (full graph vs. summary), which matters for a no-parameter read with no output schema.
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 tight sentences with the compatibility caveat first and the redirect second; nothing is wasted. The phrase 'the same v2 SQLite store' leans on unstated context, but it is compact and 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?
Annotations cover safety and there are no parameters, but with no output schema the description should clarify what a 'graph read' actually returns and roughly how large it can get. The size warning gestures at this without resolving it.
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?
Zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline applies.
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?
It labels itself a 'compatibility tool' and refers to 'explicit graph reads', implying it returns the full knowledge graph, but never states outright that it returns all entities and relations. An agent can infer the scope only from the absence of parameters plus the size warning, not from an explicit verb+resource statement.
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?
It explicitly routes the agent away: 'prefer search_memories for bounded project-aware retrieval', naming the sibling and the condition that selects it. It stops short of saying when read_graph itself is the right choice (i.e., when a complete dump is actually wanted).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.