NetworkX Graph MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves edges with optional filtering, but doesn't describe what 'edges' represent in this context, whether results are paginated, what format they return, or any performance characteristics. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise at just 6 words, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. While arguably too brief for adequate tool documentation, it achieves efficiency in expression without redundancy.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what constitutes an 'edge' in this graph context, what data the tool returns, or how the optional filtering works. With 15 sibling tools in this domain, more contextual information would be needed for proper tool selection and use.

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 0% schema description coverage for both parameters, the description provides minimal additional semantic information. It mentions optional filtering by 'node' (which likely corresponds to 'node_id'), but doesn't explain what 'graph_id' represents or the relationship between these parameters. The description doesn't compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 states the tool's purpose as 'Get edges (optionally filter by node)', which provides a basic verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_node_edges' or 'list_nodes', leaving ambiguity about its specific scope. The purpose is clear but lacks differentiation from alternatives.

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. It mentions optional filtering by node, but doesn't specify scenarios where this is preferable over tools like 'get_node_edges' or 'list_nodes'. There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative use cases with sibling tools.

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