get_nodeRetrieve a single graph node, including its properties and every connected edge, by ID. Use it to inspect a node's details and relationships in a YAML or JSON graph.
Return one node with its properties and all edges connected to it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node | Yes | ||
| edges | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's main added value is the retrieval scope (properties plus connected edges). It does not disclose behavior for a missing or invalid id (error vs empty result), which matters for a lookup tool, so it only clears the annotated bar partially.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with zero filler. Every clause carries information.
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?
An output schema exists, so return shape need not be restated. However, the zero-coverage id parameter and the undisclosed not-found behavior leave gaps that matter given the many sibling node tools an agent must choose between.
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 0% — the single 'id' parameter is documented nowhere, and the description never explains what identifier is expected (node key, name, UUID) or its format. With one required parameter and no compensating text, the description leaves the caller guessing.
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 ('Return') and resource ('node') and adds scope detail — properties plus all connected edges — which differentiates it from the plural search-style sibling find_nodes. It does not explicitly name any sibling to route against, so it stops short of a 5.
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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as find_nodes for lookup or get_graph for whole-graph retrieval. The agent must infer from the name alone whether this is the right call.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.