AiAkiv Memory

find_partner_memory_connections

Read-onlyIdempotent

Walk the entity-event graph across the caller's org and a partner org.

Use this when the user asks what a linked partner team's memory connects to
something of their own. Do not use it for a plain partner lookup; use
`search_partner_memory` for that. Do not use it when the request states a
pattern to match; use `query_partner_memory_graph` for that.

Reads the partner org and writes nothing to either side. Candidates are
unverified pointers, not established facts. Calls are handled
one at a time per org: a second link call issued while one is in flight
comes back with `reason: busy` without running. A revoke during the call
aborts it with an explicit error rather than a shortened answer.

Args:
    link_id: Which link to read through, from `list_partner_links`.
    sentence: A complete sentence; required unless `relation="explore"`.
    anchor_entity_id: An entity of the caller's own to start from; required
        for `explore`. Entry happens in the caller's org either way.
    relation: `similar`, `before`, `after`, `evolution`, `contrast`, or
        `explore` — same meanings and argument requirements as
        `find_memory_connections`.
    reference_time: ISO 8601 basis for `before` and `after`.
    anchor_event_id: Event basis for `before` and `after`. Passing only
        `link_id` and `anchor_event_id` is read as the earlier call form, a
        walk from that event, and the response carries
        `compat="v1_anchor_walk"`.
    top_n: Max candidates per round (server-capped).
    expansion_rounds: 1 (default) or 2, as in `find_memory_connections`.

Returns:
    `{status, link_id, remote_org, candidates, bridges, grounding,
    grounding_basis, entry, truncations, budget}`. Each candidate carries
    `side`, and a partner candidate's `content_pointer` names
    `get_partner_memory_content` and this link. Aliased bridges carry
    `df_home` and `df_remote`, how common the entity is on each side. The
    partner side is not searched at entry and is reached only through
    bridges, so this never reports `absent`; see
    `grounding_basis.remote_entry_not_searched`.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`top_n`	No	Max candidates per round (server-capped).
`link_id`	Yes	Which link to read through, from `list_partner_links`.
`relation`	No	`similar`, `before`, `after`, `evolution`, `contrast`, or `explore` — same meanings and argument requirements as `find_memory_connections`.	similar
`sentence`	No	A complete sentence; required unless `relation="explore"`.
`reference_time`	No	ISO 8601 basis for `before` and `after`.
`anchor_event_id`	No	Event basis for `before` and `after`. Passing only `link_id` and `anchor_event_id` is read as the earlier call form, a walk from that event, and the response carries `compat="v1_anchor_walk"`.
`anchor_entity_id`	No	An entity of the caller's own to start from; required for `explore`. Entry happens in the caller's org either way.
`expansion_rounds`	No	1 (default) or 2, as in `find_memory_connections`.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark this read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it writes nothing to either side, candidates are unverified pointers, concurrent calls return reason 'busy', a revoke aborts with an explicit error, and the partner side is never searched at entry. This is rich, actionable transparency.

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?

The description is long but structured and front-loaded: usage guidance first, then behavior, then parameters, then return semantics. Every section earns its place, and the parameter notes are tightly scoped to non-obvious cases rather than re-explaining the schema.

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 an 8-parameter tool with output schema present, the description is complete. It covers concurrency limits, abort behavior, entry semantics, relation requirements, compatibility call form, and return-field nuances such as side, content_pointer, bridge aliases, and why absent is never reported.

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. The description adds real value beyond the schema: it clarifies when sentence is required, that anchor_entity_id is required only for explore, that entry happens in the caller's org either way, and that passing only link_id plus anchor_event_id is read as the v1 anchor-walk call form.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Walk the entity-event graph across the caller's org and a partner org.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly naming search_partner_memory and query_partner_memory_graph and stating what they are for.

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?

Guidance is explicit: use when the user asks how a linked partner team's memory connects to something of the caller's own, and do not use it for plain partner lookup (search_partner_memory) or pattern matching (query_partner_memory_graph). This leaves no ambiguity about selection.

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

All AiAkiv Memory tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Context All Your Agents Can ShareAgents share what they learn, hand off work, and hold it when you switch models. Start with 5 GB free.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.