NetworkX Graph MCP Server

by inbarajaldrin

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

export_graph

Export NetworkX graphs to YAML or JSON files for storage, sharing, or integration with other systems.

Instructions

Export graph to YAML or JSON file.

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_id": "<graph_id>"
    },
    "name": "export_graph"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`graph_id`	Yes
`format`	No	yaml
`output_dir`	No	graphs
`filename`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedJan 14, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action (export to file) but lacks behavioral details: it doesn't mention if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, whether it overwrites existing files, or any rate limits. For a file-writing tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and specifies output formats clearly, making it easy to parse quickly.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on parameters, behavioral traits (e.g., file handling), and usage context, which are crucial for a tool that writes files.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'YAML or JSON file' which hints at the 'format' parameter, but doesn't explain 'graph_id' (required), 'output_dir', or 'filename'. With 4 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description adds minimal value beyond implying format options.

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 verb ('Export') and resource ('graph'), specifying the output formats (YAML or JSON file). It distinguishes from siblings like 'import_graph' (import vs export) and 'visualize_graph' (visualization vs file export), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. While the description implies it's for exporting graphs to files, it doesn't specify scenarios (e.g., backup, sharing) or contrast with siblings like 'get_state_graph_info' (info retrieval vs file export).

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