Skip to main content
Glama
sequico

server-noonien

Official
by sequico
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Search Nodes

search_nodes
Read-onlyIdempotent

Query a knowledge graph to find nodes matching entity names, types, or observations. Filter results by type and paginate with limit and offset.

Instructions

Search for nodes in the knowledge graph based on a query

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoThe most entities to return; omit for all of them
queryYesThe search query to match against entity names, types, and observation content
offsetNoHow many matches to skip before the page; omit for none
entityTypeNoOnly entities of this exact type; omit to match every type

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
entitiesYes
relationsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.1.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / entityType
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Only entities of this exact type; omit to match every type",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The most entities to return; omit for all of them",
+  "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+  "minimum": 1,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / offset
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "How many matches to skip before the page; omit for none",
+  "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+  "minimum": 0,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
  2. First observedv1.0.2

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does 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 by structured data. The description adds no further behavioral context such as match semantics or result ordering, so it neither helps nor harms beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than true conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations plus full schema coverage handle safety and parameters. What is missing is sibling differentiation among 13 related tools, which is the one piece an agent genuinely needs here.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema itself documents query, limit, offset, and entityType precisely, including matching scope for query and exactness for entityType. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb ("Search") and resource ("nodes in the knowledge graph") and notes the query-based mechanism, so the core operation is unambiguous. However, it does nothing to distinguish it from close siblings like open_nodes or read_graph, which an agent must choose between.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as open_nodes, read_graph, or read_conflicts, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The agent must infer routing from the name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools