VeritasGraph

veritasgraph_get_entity

Retrieve a single graph entity by ID or name with its neighbours, source chunks, and glossary terms to inspect context and supporting evidence.

Instructions

One entity (by id or name) with neighbours, source chunks and glossary terms.

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": {
      "entity": "<entity>"
    },
    "name": "veritasgraph_get_entity"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`entity`	Yes	Entity id or name.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.2.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden; it does add real value by describing the returned contents (neighbours, source chunks, glossary terms), which is beyond what the schema states. However, it omits behaviour an agent needs: whether the call is read-only, what happens when the entity is not found, and how deep the neighbour expansion goes.

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?

A single telegraphic sentence with zero padding; the payload list is front-loaded. It is a fragment rather than a full clause, which slightly hurts readability but wastes nothing.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation retrieval tool, the description covers both input form and returned payload, which is most of what an agent needs. The remaining gaps are failure behaviour and neighbour depth, which are minor at this complexity.

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 single parameter has 100% schema description coverage ('Entity id or name'), so the baseline is 3. The phrase 'by id or name' in the description merely restates the schema and adds no resolution rules, precedence, or format details.

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 names the resource precisely (one entity, retrievable by id or name) and enumerates the payload it returns: neighbours, source chunks and glossary terms. The verb is carried only by the tool name, and no sibling is named, so an agent must infer that this is the singular lookup counterpart to veritasgraph_search_entities.

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?

It states the required input form (id or name) but gives no when-to-use guidance and never mentions alternatives such as veritasgraph_search_entities or veritasgraph_get_term. There is also no exclusion, e.g. that search should be used when the identifier is unknown.

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

Deploy Server