Retrieve single-hop graph edges touching an ID, optionally filtered by direction or edge type, to inspect connected nodes in a redraft project.
Single-hop edges touching id, optionally filtered by type/direction.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| direction | No | both | |
| edge_types | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 behavioral burden, yet it only restates the core query. It does not disclose whether the source node is included, how dangling edges are treated, deduplication behavior, or result limits.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope and filters come first and nothing is wasted.
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 values need not be explained, and the tool is a simple read. Still, with no annotations and no filter semantics, the definition leaves gaps an agent would want filled before invoking.
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, but it only name-drops 'type/direction' without explaining enum values, the 'both' default, or the null default for edge_types. The meaning of 'touching' (incident in either direction) is implied but never clarified.
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?
States a specific resource ('edges') and scope ('single-hop') anchored to the `id` node, so an agent can distinguish it from broader traversals like get_subgraph. It does not explicitly name that sibling, but 'single-hop' implies the distinction.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The agent must infer from 'single-hop' that multi-hop needs get_subgraph, and nothing indicates when to prefer this over dangling_edges or contradictions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.