NetworkX MCP Server

visualize_graph

Generate a visual representation of a graph to analyze its structure. Supports spring, circular, and Kamada-Kawai layouts for adapting the view.

Instructions

Create a visualization of 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": "visualize_graph"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`graph`	Yes
`layout`	No		spring

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.1.0Aug 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.1/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention what the visualization output looks like, whether an existing graph is required, or any effects on the graph data.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is very short but underspecified. It lacks sufficient detail to be useful, making it under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, and the presence of two parameters, the description is inadequate. It does not explain return values, prerequisites, or how this tool relates to the many sibling graph tools.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It mentions 'graph' only as a generic noun and completely omits the 'layout' parameter, adding no value beyond the schema's raw field names.

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 creates a visualization of a graph, using a specific verb and resource. It is the only visualization tool among siblings, so it stands out, but it lacks specificity about the kind of visualization or output format.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states the action without any context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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