NetworkX Graph MCP Server

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 'Get graph metadata and stats,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, response format, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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: 'Get graph metadata and stats.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose and has zero wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity of graph operations, lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't clarify what metadata and stats are included, how this differs from similar siblings, or behavioral aspects like error handling, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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?

The input schema has 1 parameter (graph_id) with 0% description coverage. The tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain what 'graph_id' represents, its format, or how it relates to the metadata and stats. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 'Get graph metadata and stats' clearly states the action (get) and target (graph metadata and stats), but it's vague about what specific metadata and stats are retrieved. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_graph_stats' or 'list_state_graphs', which likely overlap in 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 sibling tools like 'get_graph_stats' and 'list_state_graphs' available, there's no indication of how this tool differs in scope or context, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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