A2Me MCP Server

Get relationship between people

get_relationship_between_people

Read-onlyIdempotent

Determine the relationship between two family members by providing their person IDs.

Instructions

Returns the relationship between two family members in the family graph.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "personAId": "<personAId>",
      "personBId": "<personBId>"
    },
    "name": "get_relationship_between_people"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`personAId`	Yes	First person ID
`personBId`	Yes	Second person ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds contextual detail ('family graph') but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as return format, error handling, or edge cases. This is adequate but adds limited value beyond annotations.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place with zero waste.

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?

The tool is simple with two parameters, annotations are comprehensive, and the description clearly explains the return value ('relationship between two family members'). No output schema exists, but the nature of the response is easily inferred, making the description complete for this context.

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 description coverage is 100% (personAId and personBId both have descriptions). The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 tool's function: 'Returns the relationship between two family members in the family graph.' The verb 'Returns' and resource 'relationship between two family members' are specific, and the scope is distinguished from sibling tools like get_person_profile or get_family_members.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios. It is simply a purpose statement, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name.

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

Deploy Server