C4 Architect

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

query_architecture_graph

Reads bounded neighborhoods or search results from a saved architecture graph and returns truncation flags, with source evidence available on request.

Instructions

Read a bounded neighborhood or search result from a saved graph. Returns truncation flags; source evidence is opt-in.

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": {
      "graphPath": "<graphPath>"
    },
    "name": "query_architecture_graph"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`nodeId`	No
`search`	No
`maxBytes`	No
`maxDepth`	No
`maxEdges`	No
`maxNodes`	No
`direction`	No	both
`graphPath`	Yes
`includeEvidence`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0-alpha.1Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses truncation flags and that source evidence is opt-in, but does not state error behavior, permissions, or how the bounded limits relate to truncation. Some behavioral context is present, but it is far from complete.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the key behavior (truncation flags, opt-in evidence) is front-loaded. It is efficiently structured for a terse tool definition.

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 9-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the definition is substantially incomplete. It covers only a couple of behavioral hints and does not explain most parameters or how the bounded query behaves.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% and there are 9 parameters, so the description must provide parameter meaning. It hints at bounded neighborhood limits, search, and includeEvidence, but leaves nodeId, maxBytes, maxDepth, maxEdges, maxNodes, and direction unexplained. The added meaning is minimal.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a concrete verb ('Read') and resource ('a bounded neighborhood or search result from a saved graph'), making the operation identifiable. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as render_architecture_graph or get_architecture_summary, so it falls short of the top score.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

It implies the tool is for bounded neighborhood or search-result reads, but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. None of the sibling tools are named, so the agent must infer routing.

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

Deploy Server