Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Nexus Memory

Nexus Memory

by Neboy72
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

graph_traverse

Traverse a knowledge graph from a starting fact to find connected entities and facts across multiple hops. Filter results by relation, entity type, or access level.

Instructions

Knowledge Graph: Multi-hop traversal from a starting fact. Answers 'what is connected to X?' across the entity graph. Returns a list of {fact_id, depth, relation, path} dicts.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fact_idYesThe Qdrant point ID to start traversal from
relationNoOnly follow edges with this relation (e.g. 'manages', 'runs_on')
max_depthNoMaximum hops (default 3)
target_typeNoOnly return targets with this entity_type (e.g. 'device', 'service')
access_levelNoCaller's visibility tier: only facts at this level or below are returned (public < trusted < private)private

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.22.40
    • addedInput schema / properties / access_level
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "private",
+  "description": "Caller's visibility tier: only facts at this level or below are returned (public < trusted < private)",
+  "enum": [
+    "public",
+    "trusted",
+    "private"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv0.13.1

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return shape ({fact_id, depth, relation, path}) and that results are depth-bounded, which is real added context, but it omits whether traversal is read-only, cost/performance characteristics at higher max_depth, and how the access_level tier gates results beyond what the schema already says.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core capability, and each sentence earns its place: purpose, use-case framing, and return shape.

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?

For a 5-parameter read-style traversal with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, framing, and return structure adequately. The remaining gap is routing guidance against the many sibling retrieval tools, which is a usage concern rather than a completeness failure.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters, setting the baseline at 3. The description only adds the notion of a 'starting fact' and mentions depth in the return shape; it adds no filtering or format detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Multi-hop traversal from a starting fact') and frames the question it answers, which is concrete enough to select on. It implies differentiation from siblings like get_related or get_subgraph through the 'multi-hop' qualifier, but never names them, so the agent must infer the boundary.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied by the framing question 'what is connected to X?'. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_related, get_subgraph, or find_entities, and no preconditions or exclusions are given.

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