NeuroMedia Agent Memory

memory_link

Link two stored memories with a typed relationship such as references, implements, supersedes, extends, or contradicts. Build a knowledge graph to track how facts connect and evolve.

Instructions

Create an explicit typed link between two memories.

Args: from_id: Source memory ID to_id: Target memory ID edge_type: Type of relationship. Options: - "references" (default): General reference - "implements": Source implements/realizes target - "supersedes": Source replaces/updates target - "extends": Source builds upon target - "contradicts": Source conflicts with target - "related_to": Generic relationship bidirectional: If True, also create reverse link (default: True)

Returns: Dict with created links and their types

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`to_id`	Yes
`from_id`	Yes
`edge_type`	No	references
`bidirectional`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains the edge_type options and bidirectional behavior, but lacks details on idempotency, validation, or failure conditions.

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?

Brief first-line summary followed by structured Args section. No redundant sentences; all sentences add value.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and existence of output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the tool's purpose, parameters, and return value, but omits preconditions like memory existence.

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%, but the description provides full meaning for all 4 parameters, including explanations for edge_type options and bidirectional's reverse link creation.

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 clearly states the verb 'create' and the resource 'explicit typed link between two memories'. It distinguishes from siblings like memory_unlink, which removes links.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., memory_merge). It does not indicate when not to use or provide context for using different edge types.

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