NetworkX Graph MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_node_edges

Retrieve incoming and outgoing edges for a specific node in a NetworkX graph to analyze connections and relationships within the graph structure.

Instructions

Get incoming/outgoing edges for a node.

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>",
      "node_id": "<node_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_node_edges"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`graph_id`	Yes
`node_id`	Yes

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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves edges but doesn't mention if it's read-only, requires permissions, handles errors, or returns paginated results. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely queries graph data.

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, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded. It conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 the complexity of graph operations, lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address return values, error handling, or how edges are structured, leaving the agent with inadequate information for correct invocation.

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 schema provides no parameter details. The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names implied by 'graph_id' and 'node_id', failing to explain what these IDs represent or how to obtain them, which is insufficient given the low coverage.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('incoming/outgoing edges for a node'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_edges' or 'get_node', which might have overlapping functionality, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_edges' and 'get_node' that might retrieve similar data, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for usage.

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