Export link-graph data as nodes and edges to power visualizations in D3.js, Obsidian Graph, or Gephi.
Export link-graph data for visualization.
The node-and-edge format can feed D3.js, Obsidian Graph, or Gephi.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| folder | No | optional folder filter | |
| include_orphans | No | include notes without links |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It explains the output kind (node-and-edge graph data) but does not mention side effects, default behavior for orphan inclusion, or whether it is strictly read-only.
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?
The description is two concise sentences with no redundant detail. It front-loads the action and then gives concrete format context.
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 is sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool given the parameter schema and the indication that an output schema exists. It names the output format but leaves exact fields to the output schema.
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?
Both parameters have clear schema descriptions (folder filter and include orphans), so the schema already provides the needed meaning; the description adds no further parameter context.
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?
Description clearly states the tool exports link-graph data for visualization, which distinguishes it from link statistics, cluster finding, and backlink tools. The node-and-edge format and target tools make the intended use concrete.
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?
It explicitly frames the tool for visualization use cases and names compatible consumers (D3.js, Obsidian Graph, Gephi), but it does not explicitly contrast it with related graph-analysis tools such as link_stats or find_link_clusters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.