NetworkX Graph MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

visualize_graph

Render NetworkX graphs to PNG files for visualization, supporting multiple layout algorithms to save visual representations of complex network structures.

Instructions

Render graph to PNG file (saves to disk, not base64).

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>"
    },
    "name": "visualize_graph"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`graph_id`	Yes
`layout`	No	spring
`output_dir`	No	graphs
`filename`	No
`dpi`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedJan 14, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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: the tool saves files to disk (not base64) and outputs PNG format. However, it doesn't mention permissions needed for file writing, error handling, or whether the operation is idempotent, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise with just one sentence containing no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and efficiently includes critical behavioral details (PNG format, disk storage).

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how errors are handled, or provide sufficient parameter context, leaving too many unknowns for effective use.

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 description must compensate. It only implicitly relates to 'output_dir' and 'filename' parameters by mentioning 'saves to disk', but doesn't explain any parameters like 'graph_id', 'layout', or 'dpi'. This insufficiently compensates for the schema gap.

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 ('Render graph to PNG file') and resource ('graph'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'export_graph' which might have overlapping functionality, preventing a perfect score.

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 like 'export_graph' or other visualization-related siblings. It mentions the output format (PNG) and storage method (saves to disk), but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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