Knowledge Graph MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly indicates this is a creation/mutation operation ('Add a node'), describes the return data structure, and provides context about different graph types. However, it doesn't mention permissions, error conditions, or idempotency behavior 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, use cases, recommendations, return data) and each sentence adds value. It could be slightly more concise by integrating some of the use cases into the initial statement, but overall it's efficiently organized.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides substantial context: clear purpose, usage guidelines, parameter guidance, and detailed return format. The main gap is lack of error handling or side effect information, but otherwise it's quite comprehensive given the constraints.

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 only 17%, but the description compensates well. It explains the relationship between node types and graph types (mapping to the 'type' enum), provides context for 'filePath' ('Link related files when applicable'), and explains 'metadata' purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly mention 'graphId' or 'name' parameters.

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 action ('Add a node') and resource ('to the knowledge graph'), with specific examples of different node types for various graph contexts. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_graph' (which creates the graph itself) and 'update_node' (which modifies existing nodes).

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 ('First create the graph using create_graph'), selection criteria ('Select the appropriate node type based on graph type'), and best practices. It also implicitly distinguishes from alternatives by focusing on node creation rather than modification or deletion.

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