open_nodesRetrieve specific knowledge graph nodes by name to access stored entities. Provide an array of entity names to fetch their details from shared AI agent memory.
Open specific nodes in the knowledge graph by their names
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| names | Yes | An array of entity names to retrieve |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entities | Yes | ||
| relations | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the name-based scope, saying nothing about behavior with missing/nonexistent names; with annotations carrying the burden, a baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; nothing is repeated or wasted. It is not padded, though it is arguably too terse to be maximally informative.
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 format need not be explained, and the single-param schema is well documented. However, for a tool with close siblings search_nodes and read_graph, the description gives the agent no basis for choosing among them, leaving a real contextual gap.
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?
Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('An array of entity names to retrieve'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description's 'by their names' merely echoes this without adding format, batching, or matching-behavior detail, matching the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.
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?
States a verb ('Open') and resource ('specific nodes in the knowledge graph') scoped by name, which distinguishes it from the broad read_graph and the query-based search_nodes. The verb 'Open' is slightly unconventional for a retrieval operation, but the schema's 'retrieve' wording and the name-scoped phrasing make the intent discernible.
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?
No explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternatives, even though the sibling set (search_nodes, read_graph) makes the selection question real. The agent must infer that you call this only when you already know the entity names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.