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 the mutation nature ('Modify'), outlines a multi-step workflow with prerequisites, specifies that only certain fields should be changed, and details the return data structure. However, it lacks information on error conditions, permissions, or rate limits.

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, usage recommendations, return data) and uses bullet points for readability. It is appropriately sized but includes some redundancy, such as listing return data fields that could be inferred from context, slightly reducing efficiency.

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?

Given the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description provides substantial context: purpose, prerequisites, workflow, and return data. It covers key aspects but omits details like error handling or side effects, which would enhance completeness for a high-risk operation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, though it contextualizes parameters by mentioning use cases like 'Update basic node information' and 'Update file paths,' which loosely map to the optional fields.

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 specific action ('Modify nodes') and resource ('in the knowledge graph'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_node (creation) or delete_node (removal). It provides concrete use cases that illustrate the scope of modifications possible.

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 explicitly names prerequisite tools (list_graphs and get_node_details) and provides a step-by-step workflow for proper usage. It includes specific recommendations like 'Only update fields that need to be modified' and 'After updating, call get_node_details again to confirm changes,' offering clear guidance on when and how to use this tool.

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