Find a subject's neighbors by relation in a bitemporal graph, now or at a historical time, and expand depth to reveal indirect connections.
Neighbours of a subject by relation, now or at as_of; depth 2-3 walks further. At most limit (0: all); a cut list starts with {"more": ...}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| as_of | No | ||
| depth | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| subject | Yes | ||
| relation | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.34.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond readOnlyHint=true, the description discloses meaningful behavior: time-travel via as_of, multi-hop traversal via depth, limit semantics including 0 meaning unlimited, and the truncated-result marker `{"more": ...}`. That truncation signal is genuinely useful context an agent cannot get from annotations or schema.
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?
Extremely compact and front-loaded with no filler, but the telegraphic semicolon style edges into ambiguity — "depth 2-3 walks further" could be read as a permitted range rather than a recommendation, and `{"more": ...}` uses placeholder syntax without explanation.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description should describe the return shape; it only hints at it through the truncation marker. With readOnlyHint covering safety and a 5-param schema fully undocumented, an agent still lacks the result structure and the as_of format needed for confident first-call use.
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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does touch all five parameters (subject, relation, as_of, depth, limit). However it gives no format for `as_of` (ISO? relative?), no explanation of what happens beyond depth 3, and no default values, so it only partially compensates.
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 phrase "Neighbours of a subject by relation" names the resource and the traversal operation, but there is no leading verb (list/get/query) and no reference to siblings like search or context. An agent can infer it is a graph-neighbour query, but distinguishing it from `context` or `search` requires inference.
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?
No sentence says when to use this tool instead of `context`, `history`, or `search`. The only usage-ish hints are parameter behaviors ("depth 2-3 walks further", "limit (0: all)"), which guide invocation but not tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.