List graph edges between entries, filtering by source ID, target ID, relation type, or archived status to map how knowledge nodes connect.
List graph edges between entries
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source_id | No | Filter by source entry ID | |
| target_id | No | Filter by target entry ID | |
| relation_type | No | Filter by relation type | |
| include_archived | No | Include soft-deleted refs |
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 disclosure burden. 'List' weakly implies a read, but nothing states that explicitly, nor does it describe pagination, default filtering behavior, or whether archived refs are excluded by default. For a no-annotation tool this is a substantial gap.
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's efficiently structured, though the brevity overlaps with the completeness gaps rather than being a flaw of verbosity.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and an unstated default for include_archived, the description leaves the agent guessing at the return shape and default scope. It should at minimum say what a ref/edge record contains and whether archived refs are returned by default.
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 each of the four filters is already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds nothing beyond that (e.g., how multiple filters combine, or the default for include_archived), so it does not exceed the baseline.
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 (List) and a specific resource (graph edges between entries), so an agent knows it enumerates relationship records rather than entries themselves. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from the closest siblings (get_entry_graph, save_entry_ref), but the verb+resource pairing is clear enough to route on.
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 statement of when to use this versus get_entry_graph or save_entry_ref, and no mention that all four filters are optional (so it can enumerate everything). The agent must infer usage context purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.