Launch the 3D graph viewer in your browser to explore visualizations. Optionally fly to a specific node by ID or run a search query to locate and inspect graph data, enabling direct analysis of your stored knowledge.
Open the 3D viewer in the user's browser. focus is a node id to fly to;
query runs a search in the viewer. The URL works only on this machine.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| focus | No | ||
| query | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful facts: the viewer opens in the user's browser and the URL is machine-specific. It does not mention error handling, return behavior, or whether the call blocks, but these are minor for a simple browser-launching tool.
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 two concise sentences with the main action front-loaded. Each sentence earns its place: one states what the tool does, the other clarifies the parameters and the environment limitation.
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 low-complexity tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: the action, parameter meanings, and a critical environmental constraint. It omits only incidental details like return behavior or blocking semantics, which are easy to infer.
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?
The schema provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the inline explanations are essential. `focus` is clearly defined as a node id to fly to and `query` as a search action, giving the agent enough meaning to pass correct values.
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 states a specific action—opening the 3D viewer in the user's browser—and clearly names the resource being acted on. It also introduces the two parameters that shape the action, making the tool's role distinct from the sibling data-query tools.
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 the tool is useful by explaining that `focus` flies to a node and `query` runs a search in the viewer, but it does not explicitly contrast this with sibling tools like `search` or `get_graph`. The note that the URL works only on this machine is a useful constraint, yet it does not fully spell out when to choose this tool over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.