okf-mcp

list_edge_kinds

Read-onlyIdempotent

Count standard semantic and extension edge kinds in the current graph to analyze its structure and validate the expected connection types.

Instructions

Count standard semantic and extension edge kinds in the current graph.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_edge_kinds"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.9.0Aug 25, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, idempotentHint: true, and destructiveHint: false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'current graph' scoping and the distinction between standard and extension kinds, which provides some context. However, it does not disclose return format, error conditions, or performance implications—though these are less critical given the strong annotations. Overall, it adds limited behavioral insight beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is a single, directly actionable sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, and every word contributes to meaning. It is optimally concise.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the result. It only says 'Count' without specifying the return format (e.g., a list, map, or aggregate). Furthermore, terms like 'standard semantic' and 'extension' are left undefined, which could be ambiguous to an agent without domain context. For a parameterless read-only tool, this is a moderate gap in completeness.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. With no parameters, the description has no need to clarify parameter semantics; the schema is trivially complete. Nothing is missing in this dimension.

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 action ('Count') and the resource ('standard semantic and extension edge kinds') scoped to the current graph. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling list tools like list_types or list_relation_types, though it does not explicitly name them. The purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention excluded cases, prerequisites, or favorable contexts. Since sibling tools have overlapping list functions, the absence of any usage direction leaves the agent to infer applicability.

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