Checks whether a graph contains an Eulerian path or circuit, reporting degree analysis and start/end vertices.
Check whether a graph has an Eulerian path or circuit. Reports degree analysis and start/end vertices.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| edges | Yes | Edges as [u, v] pairs | |
| directed | No | Whether the graph is directed (default: false) | |
| 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 full behavioral burden. It adds useful output context by saying it reports degree analysis and start/end vertices, but it does not describe directed-graph handling, edge cases, or the exact return shape.
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?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a useful output note. No sentence is wasted.
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?
For a three-parameter algorithmic tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives a reasonable high-level summary. However, it omits return format, directed-graph behavior, and edge-case handling that an agent might need to interpret results correctly.
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%, so the schema already documents vertices, edges, and directed with defaults. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: checking whether a graph has an Eulerian path or circuit. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from the sibling euler_tour tool.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, and no conditions for choosing this over euler_tour or other graph tools. Usage is only weakly implied by the purpose sentence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.