Find related entities via n-hop graph traversal.
Args:
entity_id: Source entity id.
max_hops: Traversal depth 1-4 (default 2).
limit: Max neighbors (1-200).
memory_id: Target memory id (auto-resolved if omitted).
api_key: Bearer token for authentication.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| api_key | No | ||
| max_hops | No | ||
| entity_id | Yes | ||
| memory_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavior — max_hops bounded to 1-4, limit to 1-200, and memory_id auto-resolved when omitted — but says nothing about what the traversal returns, ordering, or what happens when no neighbors exist.
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?
One front-loaded sentence states the operation, followed by a tight parameter list with no filler. The Args block is slightly schema-like but every line adds real semantics.
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 5-parameter tool with no output schema, the definition documents inputs adequately but leaves the return value entirely unstated, so an agent cannot anticipate the shape of the related-entity result. It is minimally sufficient rather than complete.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: each of the five parameters is explained, and numeric ranges for max_hops and limit go beyond the bare schema types. It omits the limit default (schema says 50) and does not specify entity_id format.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Find related entities') plus the mechanism ('n-hop graph traversal'), which is more precise than any sibling tool name suggests. It does not name a sibling it is not, so an agent must infer differentiation from tool names alone.
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?
Usage is only implied: the traversal framing suggests graph exploration rather than lookup or recall, but the description never states when to prefer this over awareness_lookup, awareness_recall, or awareness_timeline, nor any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.