Search graph entities by query to retrieve matching nodes from configured groups, filtering by entity type, group ID, or center node.
Search graph entities. Requests are restricted to configured groups.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| group_ids | No | ||
| max_nodes | No | ||
| entity_types | No | ||
| center_node_uuid | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It states a restriction ('Requests are restricted to configured groups'), which is useful, but doesn't disclose return behavior, pagination, or whether the search is semantic or keyword-based. For a search tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient.
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 short sentences and front-loads the core purpose. There is no wasted text, but it is under-specified for a tool with five parameters and no annotations. It earns credit for efficiency but not for completeness.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, the description is missing parameter explanations entirely (0% schema coverage) and provides no usage context. For a search tool with five parameters and no annotations, it is significantly incomplete.
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%, meaning none of the 5 parameters are described in the schema. The description adds no parameter information at all. With zero coverage, the description should compensate but completely fails to do so.
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 says 'Search graph entities', which is a clear verb + resource. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like search_memory_facts or get_entity_edge. Without sibling differentiation, it's merely adequate.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only contextual clue is 'Requests are restricted to configured groups', which is a constraint, not usage guidance. The agent must infer when this is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.