List knowledge graph entities and filter by RDF type or predicate to inspect relevant facts and relationships.
List entities in the knowledge graph, optionally filtered by type or predicate
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Filter by rdf:type IRI | |
| limit | No | Maximum number of entities (default: 100) | |
| predicate | No | Filter by predicate IRI |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.17.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not disclose ordering of results, whether the list is complete or truncated, how the default limit of 100 interacts with large graphs, or what errors look like. With annotations carrying the behavioral load, this is adequate but minimal.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first and the filter modifier second. No filler, no restating of the name or title.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what a returned entity looks like (IRI plus label? all triples? counts?) and it does not. For a graph listing tool in a very large sibling set, it also fails to signal result-shape or paging expectations, leaving an agent to discover them by trial.
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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (type as rdf:type IRI, predicate as predicate IRI, limit with default 100) are already documented in the schema. The description echoes the type/predicate filters but omits the limit parameter entirely and adds no IRI format examples or precedence rules when both filters are supplied. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('List entities in the knowledge graph') plus the optional filter modes, so an agent knows exactly what the tool returns conceptually. It stops short of distinguishing this from closely related siblings such as quipu_entity, quipu_search_nodes, or quipu_spotlight, and the opaque name 'quipu_cord' provides no supporting signal.
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 choose this listing tool over the numerous sibling query/search tools (quipu_query, quipu_search_nodes, quipu_unified_search, quipu_entity). The phrase 'optionally filtered' hints at flexibility but names no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.