Neo4j GraphRAG MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that property size warnings help avoid token limits, provides an example of how to interpret warnings, and mentions performance implications of sample_size. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: the IMPORTANT note, the bulleted list of outputs, the explanation of warnings with an example, and the parameter guidance. There is no wasted text, making it highly 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?

Given the tool's complexity (schema retrieval with performance warnings), the description is complete. It covers purpose, prerequisites, outputs, parameter guidance, and integration with sibling tools. Although there is no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns and how to use the information.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context: it clarifies that 'sample_size' should only be provided if requested by the user or for performance tuning, and links it to accuracy vs. speed trade-offs. This enhances understanding beyond the schema's technical description.

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 tool's purpose: 'Returns Neo4j graph schema with search indexes and property size warnings.' It specifies the exact resources returned (schema, indexes, warnings) and distinguishes it from sibling tools by emphasizing it should be called BEFORE using search tools, establishing its unique preparatory role.

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 provides explicit usage instructions: 'Call this tool BEFORE using any search tools (vector_search, fulltext_search, search_cypher_query).' It also specifies when to provide the 'sample_size' parameter ('only if requested by the user, or tuning performance'), offering clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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