Create a provenance edge between knowledge objects, ensuring a directed acyclic graph by rejecting cycles. Relations do not assert truth.
Create a formal provenance/relation edge. DAG-forming relations reject cycles; relations do not make claims true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| relation_type | Yes | ||
| idempotency_key | No | ||
| source_object_id | Yes | ||
| target_object_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It does disclose two valuable behaviors beyond schema: cycle rejection for DAG-forming relations and the semantic caveat that relations do not make claims true. However, it omits idempotency behavior (an idempotency_key parameter exists), reversibility, and any auth requirements for a mutation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tightly written sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence packs two distinct behavioral caveats efficiently, though the definition is quite terse overall.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be documented. But for a mutation with zero annotations and 0% parameter coverage, the description leaves meaningful gaps: parameter meaning, idempotency behavior, and the distinction from sibling relate tools are all absent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It never explains source/target object semantics, valid relation_type values, or how idempotency_key affects repeated calls; only an oblique reference to 'DAG-forming relations' hints at relation_type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb+resource ('Create a formal provenance/relation edge'), which is clearly more than a tautology. However, it does not distinguish this from the near-identical sibling agora_relate_claims, so an agent must infer from the tool name alone which object class it targets.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. With agora_relate_claims present as a highly similar sibling, the description should explain the choice between relating knowledge objects versus claims, but it offers nothing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.