NetworkX MCP Server

add_nodes

Add nodes to a NetworkX graph to expand its structure for analysis. Specify the graph and a list of node identifiers to insert new vertices.

Instructions

Add nodes to a graph

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": {
      "graph": "<graph>",
      "nodes": "<nodes>"
    },
    "name": "add_nodes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`graph`	Yes
`nodes`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.1.0Aug 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

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 states the basic action ('Add nodes') and does not disclose whether nodes are overwritten, whether the graph must exist, or any side effects. 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.

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single short sentence with no filler words, which is concise in wording. However, it is under-specified and lacks necessary details, so the conciseness comes at the expense of completeness. The structure is minimal but acceptable for the simplicity of the action.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse to guide correct usage. It leaves out critical context about graph existence requirements, duplicate handling, and error cases. Given the complexity of the graph domain and many sibling tools, this description is incomplete.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names. It does not clarify what the 'graph' parameter should contain (ID vs name) or what format 'nodes' should follow. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 uses the specific verb 'Add' and identifies the resource 'nodes' and target 'graph', making the primary action clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from closely related siblings like add_edges or remove_nodes, so it's clear but not fully differentiating.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites such as the graph already existing, nor does it explain what happens if nodes already exist. There is no context to help an agent decide between this and add_edges or create_graph.

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