VeritasGraph

veritasgraph_structured_list_measures

Lists named SQL measures with their expressions, source tables, and review statuses, optionally filtered by status, to help audit and manage metric definitions.

Instructions

Named SQL measures with their expression, table and review status.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "veritasgraph_structured_list_measures"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.2.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that returned measures include expression, table, and review status, but it does not state that this is a read-only operation, how results are ordered or paginated, whether the status input filters results, or what permissions are required.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single short phrase with no wasted wording and is front-loaded with the resource name. However, it is a sentence fragment without an action verb and omits essential structure for a tool definition.

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 simple list-style tool with one optional parameter, the description is still incomplete: it does not document the status filter, does not explain the return shape beyond naming three fields, and provides no behavioral details. Without an output schema or annotations, more context is needed for reliable invocation.

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 one parameter, status, with 0% description coverage. The description never mentions this input parameter or explains its format, allowed values, or filtering semantics, so it adds no meaning beyond the bare string schema.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description names the resource as 'Named SQL measures' and lists attributes like expression, table, and review status, so the domain is clear. However, it uses a noun phrase without a verb such as 'list' or 'retrieve', so the exact action is only implied by the tool name, and it does not distinguish itself from sibling search or term tools.

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 such as veritasgraph_structured_search or veritasgraph_search_terms. It also gives no context for when to supply the optional status parameter. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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

Deploy Server