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. It discloses key behavioral traits: it follows edges by order attribute, stops at decision nodes by default, and returns a sequence of nodes with details. However, it lacks information on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'details' include (e.g., node properties). This is adequate but has gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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 front-loaded and efficient: two sentences that convey the core functionality and default behavior without waste. Every sentence earns its place by adding value (execution order logic and stopping condition). No redundant or vague phrasing.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and moderate schema coverage (67%), the description is minimally complete. It covers the tool's purpose and basic behavior but lacks details on output format (what 'details' entail), error cases, or integration with sibling tools. For a graph traversal tool with 3 parameters, this is adequate but leaves room for improvement in contextual richness.

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 67% (2 out of 3 parameters have descriptions). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions 'from a start node' (covered by schema) and 'Stops at first decision node by default' (hints at 'until_decision' parameter). It doesn't explain 'graph_id' or provide additional context like format or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does most of the work.

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: 'Get nodes in execution order from a start node, following edges by order attribute.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('nodes'), and method ('following edges by order attribute'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'find_path' or 'list_nodes', which also retrieve node information but with different logic or scope.

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 implies usage by mentioning 'from a start node' and 'Stops at first decision node by default,' which suggests it's for traversing graphs in a specific order. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'find_path' (which might find paths between nodes) or 'list_nodes' (which lists all nodes without order). No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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