list_named_graphsLists all named graphs available in the registry, returning their names, aliases, order, size, graph6 string, and a short note for each.
Every graph in the registry that can be referred to by name.
Returns name, aliases, order, size, graph6 string and a short note for each.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that it returns a list of graph metadata, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly mention that it has no side effects or any other behavioral traits such as rate limits.
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 concise, using two short sentences to convey the purpose and the returned fields. There is no redundant information.
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 simple list operation with no parameters and a clear return description, the tool is adequately specified. No additional context is needed to understand its function.
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?
The input schema has no parameters, so the description does not need to explain any. The description's mention of return fields is not relevant to parameter meaning, so it neither adds nor detracts from the schema.
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 clearly states that the tool lists all graphs in the registry that can be referred to by name, and it specifies the returned fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform graph operations.
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?
The description implies that this tool is for retrieving available named graphs, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives like identify_graph or run_sage. Since it is a simple list operation, the usage is somewhat implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.