Fetch all nodes for a given community ID from a Graphify graph, optionally targeting a project path and limiting output with a token budget.
Get all nodes in a community by community ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| community_id | Yes | Community ID (0-indexed by size) | |
| project_path | No | Absolute path to a project directory containing graphify-out/graph.json. Optional — defaults to the graph this server was started with. | |
| token_budget | No | Max output tokens |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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. It implies a read operation but does not mention side effects, permissions, output truncation, or what happens with the token_budget parameter.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.
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 has no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally sufficient but leaves gaps. It does not explain what a 'community' represents, how the output is structured, or how token_budget affects the result.
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 (community_id, project_path, token_budget) are documented in the schema itself. The description only references community_id and adds no meaningful semantics beyond the schema, which is the baseline expectation.
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 ('Get') and resource ('all nodes in a community') plus the required key ('by community ID'). It is clear and actionable, but it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like get_neighbors or query_graph that might also return graph nodes.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.