Traverses a graph from a specified starting node in a collection and returns nodes and links formatted for visualization.
Traverse the graph and return nodes and links in a format ready for visualization. Requires collection and start_id of the starting node.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| start_id | Yes | The starting node ID. | |
| max_depth | No | Max depth traversal. | |
| max_nodes | No | Max nodes to return. | |
| collection | Yes | The collection name. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add real value by disclosing the return shape (nodes and links, visualization-ready), which is otherwise undocumented since there is no output schema. But it omits edge direction semantics, what happens on truncation by max_nodes, and behavior when start_id does not exist.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and output format, with the prerequisite trailing. Nothing is padded, though the second sentence is nearly redundant with the schema's required array.
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 traversal tool with no output schema, the description usefully explains that results are visualization-ready nodes and links. It stops short of covering truncation behavior at max_nodes, directionality of traversal, or why one would choose this over hyperspace_graph_traverse, leaving real gaps.
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?
All four parameters are documented in the schema at 100% coverage, including defaults of 2 for max_depth and 256 for max_nodes. The description only restates the two required parameters and adds no semantics for depth or node limits, so baseline 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 concrete verb and resource — traversing a graph from a start node and returning nodes and links shaped for visualization. That is unambiguous about what the tool does. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like hyperspace_graph_traverse, hyperspace_get_neighbors, or hyperspace_query_planner, so an agent cannot pick between them on the description alone.
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?
"Requires `collection` and `start_id`" is a prerequisite restatement, not usage guidance. Nothing says when a bounded traversal is preferable to graph_traverse, get_neighbors, or find_clusters, even though these overlap heavily. The agent is left to infer choice from tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.