Attach evidence links to graph nodes by adding source URLs and titles, enabling traceable verification. Accumulate multiple citations per node to preserve research context.
노드에 근거 링크를 붙인다 (예: IDA 어드레스, 문서 URL).
한 노드에 여러 citation 이 누적된다. source_url 은 파일 경로/주소도 허용 — 반드시 http 일 필요 없다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node_id | Yes | ||
| source_url | Yes | ||
| source_title | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that citations accumulate on a node and that source_url accepts file paths/addresses beyond HTTP. However, it omits potential side effects (e.g., whether citations are immutable, ordering, or any conflicts). This is useful but incomplete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no redundancy. The main action is front-loaded and the additional detail about URL flexibility and accumulation is concise. Could be more structured, but efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (3 flat params, no nested objects) and has an output schema, so return values are covered. The description covers the key behavioral nuance (accumulation, URL flexibility) but leaves parameter explanations incomplete for node_id and source_title, which reduces overall completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 for all parameters. It clarifies that source_url can be a file path or address, but does not explain node_id (which node) or source_title (its role or format). Two of three parameters remain semantically unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: attaching evidence links to a node, with concrete examples (IDA address, document URL). This is specific and unambiguous, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like add_annotation or update_node.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer cite over add_annotation or update_node, nor any prerequisites. The only contextual note (accumulation of citations) is more about behavior than usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.