Knowledge Graph Memory Server

Search Nodes

search_nodes

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find nodes in a knowledge graph by matching a query against entity names, types, and observation content.

Instructions

Search for nodes in the knowledge graph based on a query

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes	The search query to match against entity names, types, and observation content

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`entities`	Yes
`relations`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 15, 2026

addedInput schema / $schema

Added value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"

addedInput schema / properties / query / maxLength
```
Added value: +2048
```

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "entities": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": false,
+        "properties": {
+          "entityType": {
+            "description": "The type of the entity",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "name": {
+            "description": "The name of the entity",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "observations": {
+            "description": "An array of observation contents associated with the entity",
+            "items": {
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "type": "array"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "name",
+          "entityType",
+          "observations"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "relations": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": false,
+        "properties": {
+          "from": {
+            "description": "The name of the entity where the relation starts",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "relationType": {
+            "description": "The type of the relation",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "to": {
+            "description": "The name of the entity where the relation ends",
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "from",
+          "to",
+          "relationType"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "entities",
+    "relations"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv1.0.0Aug 15, 2025

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description only needs to add non-redundant context. It confirms the operation is query-based over the knowledge graph but says nothing about matching semantics (substring vs fuzzy), ranking, or result limits, so it is adequate rather than informative.

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?

One compact sentence with no filler, and the resource and input are front-loaded. It is efficient but leaves obvious room to add the differentiating clause about when to prefer it over read_graph.

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

Completeness3/5

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 no explanation, and the annotations cover the safety profile. What is missing is the positioning among the nine sibling graph tools, which matters for a search entry point in a graph API.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'query' parameter is fully documented in the schema as matching entity names, types, and observation content. The description adds no syntax, format, or matching details beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description names a specific verb (Search) and resource (nodes in the knowledge graph) with a clear input basis (a query). It does not, however, distinguish this from siblings like read_graph or open_nodes, which also retrieve node data, so the agent cannot tell them apart from the description alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as read_graph (whole graph) or open_nodes (direct lookup by name). The agent must infer from the tool name alone that this is the query-matching retrieval path.

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

Deploy Server