Checks whether an undirected graph is bipartite (2-colorable) and returns the two vertex sets or an odd cycle.
Check whether an undirected graph is bipartite (2-colorable). Returns the two vertex sets if bipartite, or an odd cycle if not.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| edges | Yes | Undirected edges as [u, v] pairs | |
| vertices | Yes | Number of vertices (0-indexed) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses both return outcomes (two vertex sets if bipartite, an odd cycle if not), but it omits edge-case or error 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core check and then the return contract. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must explain return values, and it does for both bipartite and non-bipartite cases. It is nearly complete but lacks any usage guidance or assumptions about graph validity.
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%, with both vertices and edges documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter syntax or constraints beyond 'undirected graph', so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 'Check' and resource 'undirected graph is bipartite (2-colorable)', making the operation clear. It does not name sibling alternatives such as graph_coloring or chromatic_number, so sibling differentiation is absent.
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, when-not, or alternative guidance is provided. The agent must infer that this is for bipartiteness testing rather than general graph coloring.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.