Retrieve full details for a specific node by label or ID from a project's Graphify graph, with an optional project path to target a different graph.
Get full details for a specific node by label or ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| label | No | Node label or ID to look up | |
| node_id | No | Alias for label (node id) | |
| project_path | No | Absolute path to a project directory containing graphify-out/graph.json. Optional — defaults to the graph this server was started with. |
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 disclosure burden. 'Get' implies a read, but it says nothing about behavior when a node is not found, whether the result is cached or scoped, or how the project_path default interacts with the lookup.
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 no wasted words. It is efficiently sized, though its brevity is partly a symptom of thin content rather than deliberate compression.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what 'full details' actually contains and how project_path changes the target graph. Neither is covered, leaving an agent unable to predict the response shape.
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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description's 'by label or ID' merely echoes what the schema says and adds no syntax, format, or precedence detail beyond it.
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 and resource ('Get full details for a specific node') and indicates the two lookup keys (label or ID). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like query_graph or get_neighbors, but the single-node detail scope is clear enough to infer.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as query_graph for search or get_neighbors for traversal. Usage is only implied by 'for a specific node'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.