Skip to main content
Glama
Edlineas

AIVectorMemory

by Edlineas

graph

Manage code knowledge graphs with nodes (functions, classes, modules) and edges (calls, depends_on, data flow). Query, trace multi-hop relationships, and detect stale connections.

Instructions

代码知识图谱:管理函数调用链、数据流、依赖关系等结构化代码知识。支持节点/边 CRUD、多跳遍历、过期检测。

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo实体名称(add_node/query)
edgesNo批量边(batch)
labelNo边标签(add_edge)
nodesNo批量节点(batch)
startNo起始节点名称或 ID(trace)
actionYes操作类型
sourceNo起点节点名称或 ID(add_edge)
targetNo终点节点名称或 ID(add_edge)
edge_idNo边 ID(remove)
node_idNo节点 ID(remove)
relationNo关系类型(add_edge/trace)
directionNo遍历方向(trace)down
file_pathNo文件路径,自动转相对路径(add_node/query/refresh)
max_depthNo最大深度(trace)
memory_idNo关联记忆 ID(add_node)
descriptionNo描述(add_node)
entity_typeNo实体类型(add_node/query)
line_numberNo行号(add_node)
cross_projectNo跨项目遍历(trace)
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions supported operations but doesn't cover mutation consequences, permissions, or performance characteristics.

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?

The description is concise, consisting of two sentences that cover the main purpose. However, given the tool's complexity, it could be better structured.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With 19 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It mentions CRUD and traversal but lacks details on return values, error handling, or prerequisites.

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

Parameters3/5

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 does not add additional meaning beyond what the input schema already provides for each parameter.

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?

The description clearly states that the tool manages a code knowledge graph with operations like CRUD for nodes/edges, multi-hop traversal, and expiration detection. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are about memory management, not graph operations.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives or when not to use it. Given the complexity and many parameters, the description lacks usage context.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Edlineas/aivectormemory'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server