KSJ MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

find_connections

Discover connections for a journal capture by showing @-references and tag overlaps, ranked by IDF-weighted strength to reveal related notes.

Instructions

Show connections for a capture: @-references first (deliberate
assertions, both directions), then tag overlap ranked by IDF-weighted
strength — shared rare tags count for much more than shared common ones.

Args:
    capture_id:   The numeric ID returned by upload_capture or search_captures.
    min_strength: Minimum strength for tag-overlap edges (default 2.0 ≈
                  two ordinary shared tags or one rare one). References
                  are always shown. Lower it to see weaker links.
    limit:        Maximum connections listed (default 20). The total is
                  always reported.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`capture_id`	Yes
`min_strength`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv3.9.0Oct 2, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / limit

Added value: +{
+  "default": 20,
+  "title": "Limit",
+  "type": "integer"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / min_strength

Added value: +{
+  "default": 2,
+  "title": "Min Strength",
+  "type": "number"
+}

First observedv0.1.0Feb 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses meaningful behavior: references are listed first and always shown, tag overlap is ranked by IDF-weighted strength, and "the total is always reported" even when limit truncates. It lacks any note on permissions or cost, but for a read-only discovery tool the behavioral picture is solid.

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 core behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a clean Args block. Every sentence earns its place – no filler and no redundancy with the structured fields.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, and the ordering/IDF semantics are covered. The remaining gap is the absence of any tie-in to sibling tools, which matters given eleven-plus closely related connection and capture tools.

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 must compensate fully, and it does: capture_id is tied to its origin (upload_capture/search_captures), min_strength is given a concrete calibration ("2.0 ≈ two ordinary shared tags or one rare one"), and limit's interaction with the always-reported total is explained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Show connections for a capture") and details two distinct edge types: @-references (both directions) and IDF-weighted tag overlap. This is far more specific than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like surface_connections or neighborhood, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied through the argument explanations – e.g. "Lower it to see weaker links" tells the agent when to tune min_strength. However, it never names an alternative tool (surface_connections, neighborhood, find_path) or the condition that would select this tool over them, which a crowded sibling set makes valuable.

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