Create a node in a knowledge graph by providing a unique ID, optional type, label, and metadata. Enables adding entities to shared agent memory for structured retrieval.
Add a node/entity to the Semantica knowledge graph.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Unique node ID | |
| type | No | Node type, e.g. 'Person', 'Organisation' | |
| label | No | Human-readable label | |
| metadata | No | Additional properties |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and no behavioral details, the description only says 'add' without explaining idempotency, duplicate handling, whether existing nodes are updated, or what the operation returns. This leaves important mutation semantics unspecified.
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, direct sentence with no redundant wording or irrelevant details. It is optimally concise.
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?
The description covers the basic operation but omits important operational context such as uniqueness constraints, failure behavior, return value, and relationship to other tools. An agent would have to infer or discover these details elsewhere.
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%, so the parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-level meaning, but the schema sufficiently covers it, warranting the baseline score.
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?
Clearly states the operation ('Add') and the resource ('a node/entity to the Semantica knowledge graph'). This distinguishes it from the sibling 'add_relationship' tool by specifying the graph element type.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_relationship, nor any exclusions or preconditions. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.