Skip to main content
Glama
tigergraph

tigergraph-mcp

Official
by tigergraph

tigergraph__has_node

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether a vertex exists in the graph by type and ID, returning a boolean to enable safe operations, validation, and conditional logic before adding edges or retrieving data.

Instructions

Purpose: Check if a vertex (node) exists in the graph without retrieving its full data.

When to Use:

  • Verify a vertex exists before operations

  • Validation in data pipelines

  • Conditional logic based on vertex existence

  • Lightweight existence checks (faster than get_node)

Key Features:

  • Returns simple boolean result (exists: true/false)

  • More efficient than get_node() for existence checks

  • No data transfer overhead

Common Workflows:

  1. Safe operations: has_node() → if true, proceed with get_node()/delete_node()

  2. Validation: Check required vertices exist before adding edges

  3. Conditional creation: If not exists, create with add_node()

Tips:

  • Use this instead of get_node() when you only need existence confirmation

  • Combine with add_node() for upsert logic

  • Faster than catching errors from get_node()

Related Tools:

  • get_node: Retrieve full vertex data if it exists

  • add_node: Create vertex if it doesn't exist

  • delete_node: Remove vertex after confirming existence

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
profileNoConnection profile name. Omit to use the active default profile. Use 'list_connections' to see available profiles.
vertex_idYesThe unique identifier of the vertex
graph_nameNoName of the graph (uses default if not specified)
vertex_typeYesThe type of the vertex to check

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.2

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds useful behavioral context such as returning a simple boolean result, being more efficient than get_node, and having no data transfer overhead. Slight over-explanation but no contradiction.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Purpose, When to Use, Key Features, Common Workflows, Tips, Related Tools). However, it is on the verbose side; some sections like 'Common Workflows' could be trimmed, but the organization makes it easy to scan.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple existence-check tool with readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description covers the purpose, usage, and performance characteristics thoroughly. It could mention error handling or edge cases (e.g., missing vertex_type) but these are likely covered by the schema. Overall, complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes all parameters. The description mentions vertex_type and vertex_id implicitly in the workflow examples but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool checks for the existence of a vertex in the graph without retrieving full data. The verb 'has' combined with the resource 'node' is specific and distinct from siblings like get_node, add_node, and delete_node.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly lists when to use (verification, validation, conditional logic) and provides a 'Related Tools' section with alternative tools and their purposes, plus a tip to prefer this over get_node for existence checks. Clearly differentiates from siblings.

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