show_graphDisplays current flowgraph blocks, parameters, ports, and connections; optionally includes the GRC YAML that deploy_graph would submit.
Current flowgraph: blocks with their set parameters and ports, plus connections.
include_grc adds the GRC YAML that deploy_graph would submit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_grc | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It makes the returned contents clear and explains the include_grc option, but it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, side effects, or permission requirements.
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 tight sentences, front-loads the primary output, and uses the second sentence only to explain the sole optional parameter. There is no redundant restatement of the tool name or schema.
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?
With one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is largely complete: it states what is returned and clarifies the only parameter. The main remaining gap is the lack of explicit positioning among sibling graph tools.
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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining that include_grc adds the GRC YAML that deploy_graph would submit. This gives the boolean parameter meaningful context beyond its type and default.
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 identifies the resource precisely: the current flowgraph, including blocks, set parameters, ports, and connections. It also clarifies the optional GRC YAML output. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing this from sibling inspection tools such as get_block_settings or validate_graph.
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?
Usage is implied: call this to inspect the current graph, and set include_grc when the YAML that deploy_graph would submit is needed. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or comparison to sibling graph-inspection tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.