Turbo Quant Memory MCP Server

by Lexus2016

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

link_entities

Creates a Knowledge Graph link between two entities using source and target URIs, enabling AI coding agents to connect notes, files, or external references by a chosen relation.

Instructions

Create a Knowledge Graph link between two entities.

Entities are specified using URIs:

Note: note://<note_id>
File: file://<relative_path> (relative to project root)
External: e.g. issue://BUG-404, task://TASK-101

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": {
      "source_uri": "<source_uri>",
      "target_uri": "<target_uri>",
      "relation_type": "<relation_type>"
    },
    "name": "link_entities"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`scope`	No	project
`source_uri`	Yes
`target_uri`	Yes
`relation_type`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.36.1Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals that a link is created, but not whether creation is idempotent when the link already exists, whether it errors on unknown URIs, what permissions or scope constraints apply, or whether anything is mutated as a side effect. For an unannotated write tool this is a substantial gap, partially offset by the presence of an output schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, then a compact bulleted URI reference. No filler or redundant restatement of the title. Slightly more space is given to URI formats than to the unexplained relation_type, but overall it is tight.

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?

A four-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and zero schema descriptions needs more than URI syntax to be callable correctly. Missing are relation_type vocabulary, scope semantics, and duplicate/error behavior. The output schema covers return values, but input-side and side-effect completeness remain inadequate.

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 the description must compensate for all four parameters. It does a good job on source_uri and target_uri with concrete URI templates, but relation_type is required and completely undefined (no valid values or examples), and scope is never mentioned despite defaulting to 'project'. The most consequential parameter, relation_type, is left for the agent to guess.

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: 'Create a Knowledge Graph link between two entities.' An agent immediately knows this is a graph-mutation tool, and the name plus description implicitly contrast with unlink_entities. It stops short of naming a sibling or stating scope boundaries, so it is clear but not differentiated explicitly.

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 never says when to use this tool versus unlink_entities or get_related_entities, nor what prerequisites exist (e.g. must both entities already exist, does the note need to be indexed). The URI section explains input formatting, not selection criteria, so usage is only implied.

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