Run read-only graph traversals on PostgreSQL with Apache AGE. Specify the graph and output column names to return results.
Run read-only Apache AGE Cypher. Supply graph and explicit output column names.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| graph | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| columns | Yes | Output names in RETURN order; count must match RETURN expressions. | |
| timeout_ms | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'read-only' aligns but adds no contradiction. The description adds context about needing graph and explicit columns, which are behavioral requirements. It doesn't repeat the annotations, and provides useful constraint about output columns.
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?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Run read-only Apache AGE Cypher') followed by essential requirements. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundant information.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (Cypher queries) and the absence of an output schema, the description provides the basics but lacks details on return format, error handling, or the relationship between 'columns' and the query's RETURN clause. The schema partially covers constraints, but the description could elaborate on how 'columns' must match the query's return expressions, which is only partially in the schema.
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 only 20%, so the description must compensate. The description mentions 'graph' and 'explicit output column names' which adds meaning to the 'graph' and 'columns' parameters. It doesn't detail 'query' or 'limit', but the schema itself provides structural constraints. The description helps clarify the critical 'columns' parameter by stating they are explicit output names.
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 clearly states the tool executes read-only Apache AGE Cypher queries, which distinguishes it from a general query tool. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'query' or 'semantic', leaving some ambiguity.
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?
The description implies when to use this tool (for Cypher on Apache AGE) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tools might be better alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that 'query' might be for SQL or that 'explain' is for execution plans.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.