NetworkX MCP Server

connected_components

Identify connected components in a graph to reveal its structure. Get groups of nodes that are mutually reachable, useful for network analysis.

Instructions

Find connected components in the 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>"
    },
    "name": "connected_components"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`graph`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.1.0Aug 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description discloses no behavioral traits beyond the action itself. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, or any side effects, leaving the full burden unmet.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words and the main verb is front-loaded. While it is under-specified, it is well-structured and efficient for the information it does convey.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain return value and usage context. It fails to specify what the output is or how the 'graph' parameter should be provided, leaving significant ambiguity despite the simple parameter set.

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 describes a single 'graph' string parameter with 0% coverage in the description. The description does not explain the expected format, meaning, or how to reference the graph, failing to compensate for the lack of schema details.

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 uses a specific verb 'find' and resource 'connected components', clearly stating the operation. It distinguishes from sibling graph algorithms like pagerank, shortest_path, and community_detection.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or when connected_components is preferable to similar graph analysis tools.

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