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. 'List all nodes' implies a read operation but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or output format. It doesn't mention if it returns all nodes globally or within a specific graph (though the schema hints at a 'graph_id' parameter), making behavioral traits unclear.

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 with a single sentence 'List all nodes.' It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it efficient in terms of brevity, though this conciseness comes at the cost of clarity and completeness.

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 complexity (a listing operation with 1 parameter), lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what nodes are, how they relate to the graph, what the output includes, or any constraints, making it inadequate for effective 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?

The input schema has 1 parameter ('graph_id') with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no details. The description 'List all nodes' adds no parameter semantics—it doesn't explain what 'graph_id' is, its format, or how it affects the listing. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters undocumented.

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 'List all nodes' restates the tool name 'list_nodes' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. While it indicates a listing action on nodes, it doesn't specify what 'nodes' are in this context or differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_node' or 'get_node_edges', leaving the purpose vague beyond the name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_node' (for a specific node), 'get_node_edges' (for node relationships), and 'list_state_graphs' (for listing graphs), the description offers no context on selection criteria, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving usage ambiguous.

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