NetworkX MCP Server

minimum_spanning_tree

Compute the minimal spanning tree of an undirected graph using Kruskal or Prim, with configurable edge weights.

Instructions

Find minimum spanning tree of an undirected 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": "minimum_spanning_tree"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`graph`	Yes
`weight`	No	weight
`algorithm`	No	kruskal

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.1.0Aug 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

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 burden. It only restates the concept of the tool; it doesn't disclose output format, behavior on disconnected graphs, edge cases, or side effects (though likely read-only).

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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no redundant wording. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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

Completeness1/5

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

The tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, yet the description only states the high-level goal. It omits critical operational details: what format the graph parameter expects, how weight is specified, how algorithm choice affects results, and what the return value contains.

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 provides zero parameter information. The meaning of 'graph' (string), 'weight' (string), and 'algorithm' choices is left entirely to the schema, which itself has no 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Find minimum spanning tree of an undirected graph'. It identifies the operation (find MST) and the input scope (undirected graph). While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling graph algorithm tools, the MST concept is inherently distinct.

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 over alternatives like shortest_path or connected_components. No prerequisites, algorithm selection (Kruskal vs Prim), or when to choose this tool are mentioned.

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