Create up to 1,000 nodes and edges in one batch—applying nodes first, then edges—to update a live graph in a single operation.
여러 노드/엣지를 한 번에 그린다. 배치 안에서 서로 참조해도 된다.
nodes 를 먼저 적용한 뒤 edges 를 적용한다. 호출당 nodes+edges 합계 1,000개 상한 — 대량 유입은 import_from_file 을 쓴다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| edges | No | ||
| nodes | No |
| 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 carries the full behavioral burden, and it does so well: it discloses that nodes are applied before edges, that batch-internal references are allowed, and that there is a hard limit of 1,000 elements per call. It does not mention atomicity, error behavior on limit violations, or whether existing nodes/edges are overwritten, but it discloses the most operationally critical traits.
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?
Three short sentences, each adding essential information: batch capability, ordering semantics, and the size limit with routing to import_from_file. No filler or repetition; the most important constraint is front-loaded.
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 description covers core behavior, ordering, and the bulk alternative, which is good, but it omits detailed parameter semantics and failure/atomicity behavior. Since no annotations exist and the schema offers no property descriptions, the tool is not fully self-contained for an agent to call correctly without consulting sibling tools or external knowledge.
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, but it only names nodes and edges and their application order. It does not describe the expected shape of each node or edge object, required fields, or how cross-references are expressed. This is a meaningful gap for an agent trying to construct valid arguments.
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 states a specific verb and resource: draw/apply multiple nodes and edges in one call. It goes beyond the name by clarifying the batch scope and explicitly distinguishes this from import_from_file for bulk ingestion. An agent can tell this is the batched counterpart to push_node/push_edge.
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?
The description gives clear usage context: use this when applying several nodes/edges at once, especially when they reference each other. It also states an explicit boundary: if the total exceeds 1,000 nodes+edges, use import_from_file. This provides a direct when/when-not decision rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.