Neo4j MCP Server

neo4j_insert

Insert a node into Neo4j by specifying its label and properties as key-value pairs.

Instructions

Create a node in Neo4j.

Args: label: Node label (e.g. "Comprovante", "Pessoa", "Categoria"). properties: Node properties as key-value pairs.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "label": "<label>",
      "properties": "<properties>"
    },
    "name": "neo4j_insert"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`label`	Yes
`properties`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only states the action (creating a node) but omits side effects (e.g., duplicate handling), authorization needs, or output expectations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the parameter descriptions are brief yet functional.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple node creation tool with an output schema, the description covers basics but lacks details like idempotency, constraints, or return behavior. It is minimally viable but not comprehensive.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds examples for 'label' and clarifies 'properties' as key-value pairs, but schema coverage is 0% and the improvements over the schema are minimal. Baseline 3 applies due to low coverage and two parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Create a node in Neo4j', combining a specific verb with a resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like neo4j_insert_relationship (relationships) and neo4j_query (read operations).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to create a node vs. a relationship). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

Deploy Server