Retrieve all edges between nodes in a scheme to map automation connections and understand how trigger and action blocks link before editing or debugging workflows.
Get all connections (edges) between nodes in a scheme
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scheme_id | No | The scheme ID (uses MCP_SCHEME_ID env if not provided) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Get all' usefully signals an unfiltered, non-paginated read, but nothing is said about permissions, behavior for an unknown scheme_id, or what an edge record contains (no output schema exists to cover that).
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?
One compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness contributes to the missing guidance elsewhere.
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?
For a one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the essentials are covered. Still missing are error behavior for a missing scheme and any hint at the shape of the returned edges, which the agent cannot obtain elsewhere.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single scheme_id parameter is documented in the schema, including the MCP_SCHEME_ID env fallback, which the description does not restate. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the work.
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?
States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('connections (edges) between nodes in a scheme'), disambiguating from node_get and node_list_by_scheme by returning the relationship graph rather than node data. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the resource is distinctive enough to select on.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus node_get, node_list_by_scheme, or the mutation siblings node_connect/node_disconnect. The agent must infer that this is the read-side counterpart of connect/disconnect from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.