Skip to main content
Glama
LamantinAI

kaeru memory

by LamantinAI
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Hybrid

cloud_links

Read-only

Resolve existing cloud references for a local node using its initiative and name, linking local graph entries to their cloud counterparts.

Instructions

Resolve existing cloud references of a local node.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
initiativeYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed6 schema fields changedv0.8.0
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / initiative / minLength
      Added value: +1
    • removedInput schema / properties / name / description
      Removed value: -"Local node name or UUIDv7 id whose cloud soft links to resolve."
    • addedInput schema / properties / name / minLength
      Added value: +1
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "name",
-  "initiative"
-]New value: +[
+  "initiative",
+  "name"
+]
    • removedInput schema / title
      Removed value: -"CloudLinksParams"
  2. First observedv0.7.5

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description only needs to add the remaining context—but 'resolve' leaves it unclear whether anything is mutated or returned. No return shape, no behavior on missing references, no mention of what 'existing' excludes.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence with no filler, but its brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficiency.

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?

For a two-required-parameter tool with zero schema documentation and no output schema, the description leaves too much unknown: parameter meaning, return values, and relationship to the multiple sibling cloud tools.

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

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so both required parameters (initiative, name) are undocumented in both schema and description. The description never explains whether 'name' is the local node name or a cloud name, or what 'initiative' scopes.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description names a resource ('cloud references of a local node') and a verb ('resolve'), but 'resolve' is ambiguous—it could mean look up, map to cloud IDs, or reconcile conflicts. It is not differentiated from siblings like clouds, link_cloud, or pull.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus link_cloud, clouds, cloud_recall, or pull, and no stated prerequisites. The agent must infer its role from the name alone.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools