NeoCoder Neo4j AI Workflow

update_cypher_snippet

Update existing Cypher snippets by modifying their metadata, syntax, or examples. Ensure your Neo4j query library stays accurate and current.

Instructions

Update an existing Cypher snippet.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "update_cypher_snippet"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`name`	No
`tags`	No
`since`	No
`syntax`	No
`example`	No
`description`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Aug 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only implies modification ('Update') and existence ('existing'), but does not disclose partial vs full update behavior, error handling, idempotency, or permission requirements. This is a significant gap 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise, though it omits crucial detail. The efficiency is good, but the structure is minimal.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a complex tool with 7 parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain the update semantics, whether the snippet must exist, or what fields are updatable. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description still fails to provide necessary behavioral context.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The schema has 7 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no parameter context. It does not mention which fields can be updated, that 'id' is required, or any defaults. The description adds no value beyond the schema's parameter names and types.

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 a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing Cypher snippet'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, delete, or list. It is concise and unambiguous.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. It does not mention that this should be used only for existing snippets or that other tools should be used for creation or deletion.

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