zaytsv-bot-graph-mcp

create_graph

Create an empty draft graph for a Telegram bot to initialize a funnel, returning a graph ID for later validation and publishing.

Instructions

Создать пустой граф (DRAFT) в боте. Возвращает граф с id.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "botId": "<botId>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_graph"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`botId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.11.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the return of the graph with id and DRAFT status, but omits side effects, permissions, or reversibility. For a creation tool, the absence of safety context is a significant gap.

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?

The description is two short sentences with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient, but the brevity leads to under-specification, trading completeness for conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a simple 2-parameter tool, the description is minimal and does not address error cases, prerequisites like an existing bot, or behavior on duplicate names. Without annotations, the agent is left without key context to use the tool reliably.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The schema has zero description coverage for botId and name, and the description adds no information about these parameters. The agent must rely solely on parameter names, which are not explained, making it hard to know their exact purpose and valid values.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the action 'Создать пустой граф (DRAFT) в боте' (create empty graph draft), specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like create_graph_from_template by emphasizing 'empty' and 'DRAFT'.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies use for creating a blank graph, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it, so the agent must infer from the name 'empty'.

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