NeoCoder Neo4j AI Workflow

suggest_tool

Given a task description, identifies the appropriate Neo4j or Qdrant tool to meet your needs. Streamlines tool selection in your workflow.

Instructions

Suggest the appropriate tool based on a task description.

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": {
      "task_description": "<task_description>"
    },
    "name": "suggest_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`task_description`	Yes	Description of the task you're trying to accomplish

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Aug 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description only restates the basic behavior without disclosing any additional behavioral traits, such as whether the suggestion is based on heuristics, whether multiple suggestions are returned, or any side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and falls short.

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 a single, focused sentence that gets straight to the point. It is concise and well-structured with no wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and input. However, it lacks usage guidance and makes no attempt to address when to use the tool, which is a notable gap for completeness.

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 schema already documents the single parameter (task_description) with a clear description, and the tool description aligns with it. There is no additional semantic information beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's action: suggesting an appropriate tool given a task description. It uses a specific verb and resource, making the core purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like propose_tool or request_tool, though the name provides some distinction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or cases where another tool would be more appropriate. It simply states the function without context.

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