Retrieve a high-level summary of the knowledge graph, including node count, decision count, and status, to quickly assess its current state and audit progress.
Return a high-level summary of the current knowledge graph: node count, decision count, status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It states it returns a summary, implying read-only behavior, but does not explicitly say it is non-destructive or describe any performance implications. There is no contradiction, but the description is minimal.
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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no filler. It efficiently communicates the purpose and contents.
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?
For a simple, zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the agent will receive. It could clarify how this differs from get_graph_analytics, but it is otherwise sufficient for a high-level summary.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is empty and coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to explain any parameters since none exist.
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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('knowledge graph'), and explicitly lists the contents (node count, decision count, status). It clearly distinguishes itself as a high-level summary, which differentiates it from sibling get_graph_analytics that likely provides deeper analytics.
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 implies when to use it (when a high-level summary is needed) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. For a zero-parameter read tool, this is acceptable but could be more explicit about the distinction from get_graph_analytics.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.