Returns summary statistics for a local knowledge graph, including node and edge counts, community totals, and confidence breakdowns, to assess graph structure and scope.
Return summary statistics: node count, edge count, communities, confidence breakdown.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_path | No | Absolute path to a project directory containing graphify-out/graph.json. Optional — defaults to the graph this server was started with. |
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 must fully disclose behavior. It states it returns read-only summary statistics, but lacks details on performance (e.g., costly for large graphs), side effects, or prerequisites (e.g., graph must be loaded). This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the verb 'return'. Every word adds value, no filler or redundancy.
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?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description lists four return fields but omits details like data format, ordering, or whether the confidence breakdown is per community or overall. It is minimally complete but could be richer.
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 coverage is 100% and the parameter 'project_path' is well-described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, but since the schema already covers it, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description uses verb 'return' and lists specific items (node count, edge count, communities, confidence breakdown), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_community' (returns a specific community) or 'shortest_path' (pathfinding). It precisely states the tool's purpose.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., 'get_community' for a specific community). It is implied that for summary statistics one uses this tool, but explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.