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 implies a mutation ('set'), suggesting it modifies data, but doesn't specify if this requires permissions, is reversible, or has side effects. It lacks details on rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the edge doesn't exist, leaving significant 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's apparent complexity, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 mutation nature, 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value, error handling, or behavioral nuances, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively beyond basic invocation.

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 4 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'edge' and 'execution order', hinting at 'from', 'to', and 'order', but doesn't explain what 'graph_id', 'from', 'to', or 'order' represent (e.g., IDs, integer meaning). This adds minimal value beyond the schema's structure.

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 'Set execution order for an edge' clearly states the action (set) and target (execution order for an edge), but it's vague about what 'execution order' means in this context and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'set_edge_condition' or 'get_execution_sequence'. It avoids tautology by not just restating the name, but lacks specificity.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing graph or edge), exclusions, or how it relates to siblings like 'set_edge_condition' or 'get_execution_sequence'. Usage is implied only by the action 'set', with no explicit context.

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