Add an explicit relation between two memory records. Specify source and target with a relation type to establish a traceable connection for cross-session recall.
Create an explicit memory relation between two records.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| relation | Yes | ||
| source_id | Yes | ||
| target_id | Yes | ||
| source_kind | Yes | ||
| target_kind | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.9.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, but it only says the operation 'create[s]' a relation. It does not explain whether the relation is idempotent, whether existing relations are replaced, or what constraints apply to the relation or record kinds.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence states the core purpose with no filler words. Every word contributes, and the structure makes the tool's action immediately scannable.
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?
Despite having an output schema and relatively simple flat parameters, this is a write tool with five required arguments and no annotations; the description is too sparse to tell an agent how to construct a valid call. It lacks parameter meaning, usage conditions, and behavioral context.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the five required parameters. It only adds that two records are involved, leaving relation values, kind semantics, and the relationship between source and target unexplained beyond the schema's property names.
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?
The description states a specific action ('Create') and resource ('explicit memory relation between two records'), making it clear this tool links records rather than creating records or listing links. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as memory_alias_add or memory_add, relying on the term 'relation' to carry the distinction.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of related sibling tools, nor any conditions or prerequisites such as requiring the source and target records to already exist. The only usage signal is the general purpose implied by the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.