Retrieve a complete list of all data sources in TigerGraph to review and manage your data source connections.
Get information about all data sources.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| profile | No | Connection profile name. Omit to use the active default profile. Use 'list_connections' to see available profiles. |
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, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as return format or handling of empty results. With annotations covering safety, this is acceptable but adds little beyond them.
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, concise sentence that is front-loaded and to the point. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though it could be slightly more informative about the return structure. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.
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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. However, it lacks context about what 'information' includes and when to prefer this tool over related ones. The annotations cover safety, so the overall completeness is adequate but not exceptional.
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% and the profile parameter is documented in the schema with a clear description. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'all data sources', which is specific enough to distinguish from get_data_source (singular) and get_data_source_types. However, it doesn't elaborate on what 'information' entails, which could be ambiguous, but the core purpose is clear.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_data_source or get_data_source_types. The description implies it's for listing all data sources, but it doesn't explicitly say 'use this when you need a list' or mention when not to use it. No exclusions or alternatives are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.