Skip to main content
Glama

Submit Graph Intent

submit_graph_intent

Submit a graph change intent to register pending node and edge modifications for review before git commit. Provide intent_json with new or updated nodes, dependency edges, and work notes.

Instructions

提交图变更意图请求(开发完成后的必经步骤)。缓存为 pending,git 提交后由 review 核验。

何时必须调用:

  • 完成任何涉及图变更的开发任务后、创建 git commit 之前

  • 变更包括: 新增/修改节点(模块/数据结构/需求)、新增/删除依赖边

何时不需要:

  • 未产生任何结构变更的纯阅读/查询任务

参数:

  • intent_json: JSON 字符串,结构: {task_id, base_revision, nodes_to_create:[{id,label,props}], nodes_to_update:[{id,props}], edges_to_create:[{from,type,to,props}], edges_to_remove:[{from,type,to}], work_notes, summary, actor} work_notes 必填工作过程状态: 为什么这么改、考虑过什么备选(下一个实例靠它重建场景)

返回: {status: "pending", task_id, path} 注意: 本工具只缓存不写入——review 失败(git 提交被拒)时 pending 不会进图。

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
intent_jsonYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the request is only cached as pending, that review happens after git commit, and that a failed review means the pending intent does not enter the graph. This is unusually clear about side effects and non-write semantics.

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 structured with headers for usage, parameters, return, and caveats. Every section adds operational value, and the key warning about cache-only behavior is front-loaded as well as repeated at the end for emphasis without being wasted.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given a single complex parameter and no annotations, the description covers when to use it, the JSON structure, required work_notes, return shape, and failure semantics. It does not define valid values for edge 'type' or how to obtain task_id/base_revision, but sibling tools and the output schema already imply that context, so it is only slightly incomplete.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by defining intent_json as a JSON string with a complete nested structure: task_id, base_revision, node/edge collections, work_notes, summary, and actor. It also highlights that work_notes is required and explains its purpose, which goes beyond the schema.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'submit graph change intent request' and identifies it as the mandatory step after development and before git commit. It enumerates what counts as a graph change and explicitly covers when not needed, which distinguishes it from read/query sibling tools.

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?

Dedicated 'when must call' and 'when not needed' sections give explicit selection criteria: any graph-change task before creating the git commit, versus pure read/query tasks. This lets an agent route to query_impact/query_context instead without ambiguity.

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