Knowledge Graph MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes that this is a creation/mutation operation (implied by 'Add edges' and 'Newly created edge information'), specifies prerequisites that constrain usage, and provides context about relationship types and edge properties. However, it doesn't mention potential error conditions, rate limits, or authentication requirements that would be helpful for a mutation 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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, prerequisites, usage recommendations, return data) and every sentence adds value. It's appropriately sized for a 6-parameter mutation tool with complex prerequisites, providing necessary information without redundancy. The front-loaded purpose statement immediately communicates the tool's function.

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 mutation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides substantial context including prerequisites, usage guidance, and detailed return format. It covers the essential information needed to use the tool correctly. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit error handling information, but overall it's quite complete given the complexity.

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?

With only 17% schema description coverage, the description compensates significantly by explaining parameter semantics. It clarifies that sourceId and targetId must refer to existing nodes, edge type must match graph type, labels should be meaningful, and weight represents relationship strength. The description adds substantial value beyond the minimal schema documentation, especially for the type parameter where it provides context about how edge types relate to different graph types.

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's purpose: 'Add edges in the knowledge graph, connecting two nodes to build a relationship network.' It specifies the verb ('Add edges'), resource ('knowledge graph'), and distinguishes it from siblings like add_node (which adds nodes rather than edges) and update_edge (which modifies existing edges rather than creating new ones).

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 provides explicit usage recommendations including prerequisites ('Must first create a graph', 'Source and target nodes must already exist') and specific guidance on when to use ('First use list_graphs to get graph and node information', 'Confirm both source and target nodes exist'). It also distinguishes from alternatives by specifying edge type constraints and recommending meaningful labels and weight parameters.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.