Neo4j GraphRAG MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide comprehensive behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, etc.), so the bar is lower. The description adds minimal context by specifying 'read Cypher query,' which reinforces the read-only nature, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like performance characteristics, result limitations, or authentication requirements.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 annotations provide rich behavioral hints (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, etc.) and the schema has full coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema, it doesn't explain return values or result formats, and it lacks context about when to use this tool over siblings, leaving some gaps in completeness.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents both parameters ('query' and 'params'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for adequate but not enhanced parameter semantics.

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 action ('execute') and resource ('read Cypher query on the Neo4j database'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_cypher_query' or 'fulltext_search', which likely have overlapping query functionality.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'search_cypher_query' and 'fulltext_search' available, there's no indication of when this read-only query execution is preferred over other query/search tools.

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