upsert_nodesCreate or update multiple graph nodes in one call using id, kind, and label, with optional repo, path, status, and confidence fields for bulk knowledge graph curation.
Create or update several nodes at once, in the (id, kind, label) shape (each entry may also set repo/path/status/confidence/etc).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nodes | Yes | ||
| vault | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a create-or-update (mutating) operation and shows the (id, kind, label) shape, but it does not explain upsert merge semantics (which existing fields are overwritten vs preserved), permissions, or batch atomicity/failure behavior.
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 first and no filler; the parenthetical adds useful field detail efficiently. It is appropriately terse, though arguably too thin for the nested schema it governs.
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 values need not be explained, and the description covers the batch create/update intent. However, for a nested-array mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves key gaps: the 'vault' parameter, upsert merge semantics, and several optional node fields go unaddressed.
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%, so the description must compensate. It names the core shape fields (id, kind, label) and some optional extras (repo/path/status/confidence), but omits others (lineno, origin, summary, note_path) and never mentions the top-level 'vault' parameter at all.
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 (create or update) plus resource (nodes) and adds batch scope ('several nodes at once'), which effectively distinguishes it from the singular upsert_node sibling. It does not explicitly name the sibling, but the 'several...at once' phrasing makes the batch role clear.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'several nodes at once' hints that this is the bulk alternative to upsert_node, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative is given. An agent must infer the batch-vs-single distinction from the plural.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.