Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
elk-mcp

elk-mcp

by cocrates
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

validate_graph

Check a graph for structural issues like duplicate IDs, unknown parents, and cycles before layout, without running the layout.

Instructions

Validate a graph before layout: duplicate ids, unknown parents/endpoints, parent cycles, missing leaf sizes (warnings). Does not run layout.

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": "validate_graph"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
graphYesGraph to validate

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It lists validations performed and mentions warnings, but does not explicitly state it is read-only or non-destructive. More detail on side effects would improve transparency.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with purpose and enumerates checks efficiently. No wasted words.

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

Completeness3/5

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

No output schema exists, and description only mentions 'warnings' without detailing return format. With sibling tools, the context is clear, but more completeness on validation result would help.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Single parameter 'graph' has 100% schema coverage with detailed schema description. The tool description adds little beyond that, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool validates a graph before layout, listing specific checks (duplicate ids, unknown parents, cycles, missing leaf sizes). It distinguishes from sibling tool 'layout_graph' by saying 'Does not run layout'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Description implies use before layout_graph with 'Validate a graph before layout' and explicitly says not to run layout. It could more directly state when not to use, but the sibling context makes it clear.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools