VeritasGraph

veritasgraph_check_answerable

Check whether a question is covered by the knowledge graph before querying; returns matched entities, glossary terms, coverage status, and a reason without an LLM call.

Instructions

Check whether the knowledge graph covers a question before asking it: returns matched entities and glossary terms, coverage and a reason. No LLM call.

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": {
      "question": "<question>"
    },
    "name": "veritasgraph_check_answerable"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mode`	No	governed: only answer when certified glossary terms cover the question, and withhold answers whose citations are not in the retrieved evidence.
`question`	Yes	Natural-language question.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.2.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does earn credit for 'No LLM call', which tells the agent this is a cheap deterministic check rather than a generation step, and it lists what is returned. However, it never states that the call is read-only/side-effect free, nor how to act when coverage is false.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the return shape and the no-LLM caveat. No redundant or filler wording.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple two-parameter check with no output schema, the description covers inputs, outputs and cost profile adequately. A brief note on how to interpret low coverage or which tool to call afterwards would make it complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, including a detailed enum explanation for 'mode' (governed vs. exploratory) that already lives in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb and object ('check whether the knowledge graph covers a question') and enumerates the return payload (matched entities, glossary terms, coverage, reason). It loosely distinguishes itself from the query tools via 'before asking it', but never names a sibling explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The phrase 'before asking it' establishes clear sequencing guidance - this is a pre-flight check to run ahead of a real query. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Deploy Server