Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

SKEIN

by net.skein
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

skein_dep_add_many

Add many typed dependency edges in one round-trip. Each item is independent — direction + type semantics match skein_dep_add. Cycle detection runs per-edge against the live graph state, so a batch of [A→B, B→A] of type=blocks persists A→B and fails B→A with dependency_cycle: order in items[] matters. Caps at 100 edges per call; result rows preserve input order. Per-row error codes: validation_error, issue_not_found (also for a target of another space or of a project you cannot see), dependency_already_exists, dependency_cycle, parent_already_set, serialization_retry (retryable), dependency_target_not_visible_yet (retryable), batch_deadline_exceeded / request_cancelled (the row did not report a commit — resend it; an edge that landed answers dependency_already_exists), internal_error.

parent-child only ADDS a parent (parent_already_set if one exists); prefer parentId on skein_create for new children, skein_reparent to move an existing issue, skein_dep_remove to drop an edge.

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": {
      "items": "<items>"
    },
    "name": "skein_dep_add_many"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemsYesPer-row dependency edges. Min 1, max 100.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (which only say this mutates, is non-idempotent and non-destructive), the description discloses per-edge cycle detection against live graph state, per-row independence, the 100-edge cap, result ordering, and which error codes are retryable versus terminal. It even warns that a 'landed' edge returns dependency_already_exists after a deadline, which an agent could not infer from any structured field.

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 and dense: the core behavior, the ordering caveat, then the caps, then error semantics. The long error-code enumeration is high-value but reads as a single unbroken run, making it harder to scan than it needs to be; a short grouped list would cost nothing in length and read better.

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 batch mutation with no output schema and a fully annotated schema, this covers everything an agent needs: what it mutates, ordering hazards, caps, retry classification, and where to go for single-edge, move, and remove cases. Nothing material is left to inference.

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 goes beyond it by adding batch-level semantics the schema cannot express — that each item is independent, that items[] order controls which side of a cycle wins, and that result rows preserve input order. It does not re-state the per-type direction table, pointing to skein_get_instructions instead, which is a reasonable trade.

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, resource and scope: 'Add many typed dependency edges in one round-trip', and immediately anchors the batch variant to its single-edge sibling ('direction + type semantics match skein_dep_add'). An agent can distinguish it from skein_dep_add and from the reparent/remove tools without opening either schema.

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?

It explicitly routes work to alternatives with conditions: prefer 'parentId' on skein_create for new children, use skein_reparent to move an existing issue, and skein_dep_remove to drop an edge. It also warns when the tool is a poor fit by noting the 100-edge cap and the order-dependence that makes batch cycle failures non-obvious.

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

All SKEIN toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources