xgmem

open_nodes

Retrieve specific entities from a project's knowledge graph by providing entity names and project identifier. Enables direct access to stored knowledge graph nodes.

Instructions

Open specific nodes in a project's knowledge graph by their names

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>",
      "names": "<names>"
    },
    "name": "open_nodes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`projectId`	Yes	The project identifier
`names`	Yes	An array of entity names to retrieve

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.0.1May 17, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. 'Open' is ambiguous—does it retrieve data or mutate UI state? No mention of side effects, read-only nature, or what happens to existing state. This lack of transparency could lead to misinterpretation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence of 12 words conveys core purpose efficiently. Front-loaded with key action and resource. Could be slightly longer to clarify 'open', but as-is it is concise without unnecessary filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Without output schema or annotations, description is too brief. Does not explain return value, side effects, or how it differs from similar tools. In a domain with many sibling tools, more context is needed for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description adds minimal extra meaning ('by their names' confirms 'names' parameter but doesn't clarify if they are display names or IDs). With full schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate as description does not significantly enhance meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool 'open specific nodes in a project's knowledge graph by their names', using a specific verb ('open'), resource ('nodes in project knowledge graph'), and method ('by names'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'search_nodes' which search rather than open.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., search_nodes, read_graph). The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria. The user must infer usage from the name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server