Corpus-KB

by moliver28

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

search_graph

Search entities in the knowledge graph by name or type, with optional limit on results.

Instructions

Search entities in the knowledge graph by name or type.

Args: query: Search term for entity name. type: Optional entity type filter. limit: Max results (max 100).

Returns: List of matching entities.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_graph"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`type`	No
`limit`	No
`query`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states it returns a list of matching entities but omits behavioral details like whether the search is case-sensitive, supports pagination, or has any side effects. For a search tool, read-only nature should be explicit.

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?

Concise docstring with a one-line summary followed by Args and Returns sections. Efficiently conveys purpose and parameters with no redundant text, though could be slightly more structured for quick scanning.

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?

Given the complexity of the sibling tools (many search variants and BFS), the description lacks context on what distinguishes this from 'search', 'search_similar', or 'bfs'. Also, returns are vague ('List of matching entities') despite an output schema being present but not detailed. Incomplete for tool selection.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Adds clear meaning beyond the schema: explains query is a search term, type is an optional filter, and limit max is 100. Schema only provides titles and defaults; description compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'Search', resource 'entities in the knowledge graph', and scope 'by name or type'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search' or 'search_context' which operate on different resources.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Provides parameter descriptions but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search', 'search_similar', or 'bfs'. The description assumes the agent knows to use it for graph entity searches, but lacks directives.

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