Fetch a design node by ID and, if neighbor_depth is set, return nodes reachable within that many hops plus its direct edges.
Fetch a node. neighbor_depth > 0 also returns nodes reachable within that many hops (any edge type, any direction) and the node's own direct edges.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| neighbor_depth | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node | Yes | ||
| edges | No | ||
| neighbors | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the notable traversal behavior — neighbor_depth>0 pulls nodes within N hops regardless of edge type or direction, plus the node's direct edges — and "Fetch" implies a read. However, it says nothing about behavior when the id does not exist, whether traversal can be expensive or depth-bounded, or any error/permission semantics.
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 short sentences, with the core operation front-loaded and the conditional behavior following. Every clause contributes meaning; the depth explanation is dense but earns its place.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, and the neighbor_depth semantics are covered. Still, with zero annotation coverage and 0% schema descriptions, the definition leaves the id parameter and not-found/error behavior unaddressed, and it never bounds or warns about the cost of deep traversals.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It explains neighbor_depth thoroughly (hop semantics, any edge type, any direction, plus direct edges), which is genuinely useful, but the required id parameter — its format and lookup semantics — is left entirely undocumented.
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?
"Fetch a node" states a specific verb and resource, and the neighbor_depth clause clarifies the scope of the fetch. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from siblings like neighbors or get_subgraph, whose behavior appears to overlap with the depth>0 case, so an agent must still infer the boundary.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus neighbors, get_subgraph, or search_nodes, all of which plausibly return overlapping data. The description implies usage (fetching by id) but names no alternative and no exclusion condition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.