NetworkX MCP Server

set_node_attributes

Set or update attributes on one or more nodes in a graph by providing a mapping of node identifiers to attribute value dictionaries.

Instructions

Set attributes on one or more nodes

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>",
      "attributes": "<attributes>"
    },
    "name": "set_node_attributes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`graph`	Yes
`attributes`	Yes	Map of node -> {attr: value}

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.1.0Aug 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the action. It does not indicate whether attributes are overwritten or merged, whether nodes must already exist, what error behaviors occur, or what side effects (if any) are produced. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutating tool.

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, tightly worded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification rather than conciseness; it skips essential context while remaining easy to parse.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description carries full responsibility for explaining return values, side effects, and prerequisites. It does none of this, leaving the agent without critical information for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 50%: the 'attributes' parameter has a helpful inner description ('Map of node -> {attr: value}'), but the required 'graph' parameter is entirely undocumented. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, failing to clarify what the graph identifier refers to or how attribute values are structured.

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 ('Set') and a clear resource ('node attributes'), immediately distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_edge_attributes and get_node_attributes. The phrase 'on one or more nodes' further clarifies the scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_node_attributes or set_edge_attributes. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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