PayQL

Get subgraph schema (paid)

get_subgraph_schema

Discover a subgraph's root queryable entities via GraphQL introspection. Determine available queries before composing a real query.

Instructions

List a subgraph's root queryable entities via GraphQL introspection (a paid x402 query). Use to learn what's queryable before composing a real query.

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": {
      "subgraph_id": "<subgraph_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_subgraph_schema"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`subgraph_id`	Yes	Subgraph ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the query is paid (x402) and reactive, indicating no side effects since it's a read-only introspection. It does not mention rate limits or data volume, but the scope is limited to root entities.

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 two sentences long, with no redundant wording. The first sentence states the core action and paid nature, and the second sentence gives usage guidance. Every word earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool has a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the necessary context: what it does, when to use it, and the cost implication. It could briefly mention the output format (GraphQL schema) but is sufficiently complete for its simplicity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The sole parameter 'subgraph_id' is described in the schema as 'Subgraph ID', and the description adds no additional meaning or format guidance. The description does not explain how to obtain or format the ID.

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 clearly states the tool lists a subgraph's root queryable entities via GraphQL introspection, with a specific verb ('list') and resource ('subgraph's root queryable entities'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like query_subgraph (which executes queries) and search_subgraphs (searching), making the purpose unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description advises using the tool 'before composing a real query', indicating the appropriate context. It mentions it's a 'paid x402 query', alerting users to cost. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative tools for similar tasks.

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

Deploy Server