people_graphMap relationships by retrieving people nodes and connection edges, optionally filtered by organization or context, so you can see who connects to whom.
The people graph (nodes and connection edges), optionally filtered by org or context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| org | No | ||
| context | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the result contains nodes and edges, which the output schema already conveys, and says nothing about graph size, traversal depth, or empty-result behavior for what could be a large unbounded structure.
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 compact sentence, front-loaded with the resource and followed by the optional filters. It is well sized, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than genuine economy.
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, but for a zero-required-parameter graph query with 0% schema coverage the description leaves the agent without filter semantics or selection guidance. Against 17 siblings in the same domain, this is thin.
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 carries the full burden for two undocumented parameters. It merely echoes the parameter names ('filtered by org or context') without saying what an org identifier looks like, what a context refers to, or what happens when both are supplied or omitted.
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 names the resource (people graph) and even its shape (nodes and connection edges), which is more than a bare title restatement. However it uses a noun phrase with no verb, so it is ambiguous whether it fetches, builds, or renders the graph, and it does nothing to separate it from siblings like person, who_knows, or connect.
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?
The only guidance is 'optionally filtered by org or context', which describes a capability rather than when to choose this tool. With siblings such as person, who_knows, and search in the same domain, there is no statement of when this graph view beats a single-person lookup or a search.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.