Traverse the knowledge graph from a starting entry to retrieve connected nodes and edges, with optional direction, depth, and relation-type filters.
Traverse entry graph from a starting entry, returning connected nodes and edges
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entry_id | No | Starting entry ID (required) | |
| direction | No | outgoing, incoming, or both (default) | |
| max_depth | No | Max traversal depth (default 3, max 10) | |
| ref_types | No | Filter by relation types |
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 implies a read-only traversal but never states cycle handling, truncation or result capping at max_depth, behavior when entry_id doesn't exist, or the cost/shape of the returned graph — all significant for a traversal that can expand exponentially.
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 zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity verges on under-specification rather than optimal sizing.
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?
For a 4-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the core action but omits return-shape hints and traversal limits. Given no annotations and no output schema, the description should do slightly more to be complete.
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 100%, so entry_id, direction, max_depth (default 3, max 10), and ref_types are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no param-level detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 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?
States a specific verb (traverse) and resource (entry graph) plus what it returns (connected nodes and edges). It is distinguishable from siblings like list_entry_refs or get_entry, though it does not name or contrast with them explicitly.
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 versus list_entry_refs, get_context_bundle, or compare_entries, and no stated preconditions or exclusions. The usage is only inferable from the verb 'traverse'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.