Skip to main content
Glama

Change a connection's reading, note, or dates

compass_links_update
Destructive

Edits an existing edge between two pages: its kind (how the two relate), its note, and/or when it was true (validFrom / validTo). Use kind to CORRECT a connection typed wrongly — 'Dana doesn't own billing, she's involved in it'. Use validTo to END one that used to be true — 'Dana handed approvals to Sam in March' ends Dana's edge in March (then create Sam's from March); the old edge stays as history. Don't delete a relationship that ended; end it. Link ids come from compass_page_links_list. Fails with conflict when the new reading already exists between the same two pages (delete this one instead). May return needs_confirmation.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindNoNew edge type, in canonical direction.
noteNoNew qualifier note (≤500 chars); empty string clears it.
linkIdYesId of the link (from compass_page_links_list).
validToNoWhen it stopped being true (YYYY-MM-DD) — ends the relationship; null reopens it.
validFromNoWhen it started being true (YYYY-MM-DD); null clears it.
workspaceNoWorkspace slug. Personal tokens with no default workspace MUST pass this; tokens with a default can override per call. Ignored for workspace API keys.
approvalIdNoApproval id from a prior needs_confirmation response, after the user has approved. Omit on the first call.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / kind / enum
      Previous value: -[
      -  "owns",
      -  "involved_in",
      -  "holds",
      -  "uses",
      -  "serves",
      -  "delivers",
      -  "affects",
      -  "documents",
      -  "relates_to"
      -]New value: +[
      +  "owns",
      +  "involved_in",
      +  "holds",
      +  "uses",
      +  "serves",
      +  "delivers",
      +  "affects",
      +  "documents",
      +  "relates_to",
      +  "contributes_to",
      +  "part_of"
      +]
  2. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / kind / enum
      Previous value: -[
      -  "owns",
      -  "involved_in",
      -  "uses",
      -  "serves",
      -  "delivers",
      -  "affects",
      -  "documents",
      -  "relates_to"
      -]New value: +[
      +  "owns",
      +  "involved_in",
      +  "holds",
      +  "uses",
      +  "serves",
      +  "delivers",
      +  "affects",
      +  "documents",
      +  "relates_to"
      +]
    • addedInput schema / properties / validFrom
      Added value: +{
      +  "anyOf": [
      +    {
      +      "anyOf": [
      +        {
      +          "format": "date",
      +          "pattern": "^(?:(?:\\d\\d[2468][048]|\\d\\d[13579][26]|\\d\\d0[48]|[02468][048]00|[13579][26]00)-02-29|\\d{4}-(?:(?:0[13578]|1[02])-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|3[01])|(?:0[469]|11)-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|30)|(?:02)-(?:0[1-9]|1\\d|2[0-8])))$",
      +          "type": "string"
      +        },
      +        {
      +          "format": "date-time",
      +          "pattern": "^(?:(?:\\d\\d[2468][048]|\\d\\d[13579][26]|\\d\\d0[48]|[02468][048]00|[13579][26]00)-02-29|\\d{4}-(?:(?:0[13578]|1[02])-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|3[01])|(?:0[469]|11)-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|30)|(?:02)-(?:0[1-9]|1\\d|2[0-8])))T(?:(?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d(?::[0-5]\\d(?:\\.\\d+)?)?(?:Z|([+-](?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d)))$",
      +          "type": "string"
      +        }
      +      ]
      +    },
      +    {
      +      "type": "null"
      +    }
      +  ],
      +  "description": "When it started being true (YYYY-MM-DD); null clears it."
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / validTo
      Added value: +{
      +  "anyOf": [
      +    {
      +      "anyOf": [
      +        {
      +          "format": "date",
      +          "pattern": "^(?:(?:\\d\\d[2468][048]|\\d\\d[13579][26]|\\d\\d0[48]|[02468][048]00|[13579][26]00)-02-29|\\d{4}-(?:(?:0[13578]|1[02])-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|3[01])|(?:0[469]|11)-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|30)|(?:02)-(?:0[1-9]|1\\d|2[0-8])))$",
      +          "type": "string"
      +        },
      +        {
      +          "format": "date-time",
      +          "pattern": "^(?:(?:\\d\\d[2468][048]|\\d\\d[13579][26]|\\d\\d0[48]|[02468][048]00|[13579][26]00)-02-29|\\d{4}-(?:(?:0[13578]|1[02])-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|3[01])|(?:0[469]|11)-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|30)|(?:02)-(?:0[1-9]|1\\d|2[0-8])))T(?:(?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d(?::[0-5]\\d(?:\\.\\d+)?)?(?:Z|([+-](?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d)))$",
      +          "type": "string"
      +        }
      +      ]
      +    },
      +    {
      +      "type": "null"
      +    }
      +  ],
      +  "description": "When it stopped being true (YYYY-MM-DD) — ends the relationship; null reopens it."
      +}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that history is preserved (the old edge stays as history), that a conflict error is raised when the new reading already exists, and that the call may return needs_confirmation. This is meaningful mutation/error/approval context for a destructive write tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and dense with useful detail; every clause is actionable. It is on the long side with two inline examples, but no sentence is redundant.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return/error behavior (conflict, needs_confirmation) and the lifecycle semantics an agent needs to call it correctly. Nothing substantive is left unexplained.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic meaning: it frames kind as a correction mechanism and validTo as a relationship terminator with an example. It does not, however, clarify validFrom or the approvalId/workspace plumbing beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

States a specific verb (Edits) and resource (an existing edge between two pages) and enumerates the mutable aspects (kind, note, validFrom/validTo). It is clearly distinguished from siblings compass_links_create and compass_links_delete, which handle the creation and removal ends of the lifecycle.

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 prescribes when to use each field: kind to CORRECT a mistyped connection, validTo to END a relationship that used to be true. It names the alternative behavior ('Don't delete a relationship that ended; end it' and 'delete this one instead' on conflict) and points to compass_page_links_list for link ids.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources