PseudoLife-MCP

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

memory_graph_relate

Create or strengthen a typed relationship between two entities in your knowledge graph. When a relation is unrecognized, get suggestions and choose a valid alternative.

Instructions

Assert a typed relation between two entities, e.g. ("web-app", "runs-on", "host-1"). Entities auto-create and resolve through aliases; re-asserting an edge bumps its confidence. On a rejected relation, pick a suggestion, fall back to related-to, or grow the vocabulary deliberately via memory_relation_define.

Returns: {src, relation, dst, confidence, warnings} or {error: "unknown_relation", suggestions}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`dst`	Yes	The object entity.
`src`	Yes	The subject entity.
`origin`	No	Who asserted the edge.
`dst_type`	No	Entity kind for ``dst``: set when the node is created, or filled in on an existing node that has none.
`relation`	Yes	From the closed registry: ``depends-on``, ``part-of``, ``runs-on``, ``hosts``, ``uses``, ``configures``, ``stores-data-in``, ``related-to``. Separator variants normalise; an unknown name is rejected WITH the closest matches.
`src_type`	No	Entity kind for ``src``: set when the node is created, or filled in on an existing node that has none.
`confidence`	No	How sure you are, 0..1.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed7 schema fields changedv0.15.0Sep 3, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / confidence / description
```
Added value: +"How sure you are, 0..1."
```
addedInput schema / properties / dst / description
```
Added value: +"The object entity."
```

addedInput schema / properties / dst_type / description

Added value: +"Entity kind for ``dst``: set when the node is created, or filled in on an existing node that has none."

addedInput schema / properties / origin / description
```
Added value: +"Who asserted the edge."
```

addedInput schema / properties / relation / description

Added value: +"From the closed registry: ``depends-on``, ``part-of``, ``runs-on``, ``hosts``, ``uses``, ``configures``, ``stores-data-in``, ``related-to``. Separator variants normalise; an unknown name is rejected WITH the closest matches."

addedInput schema / properties / src / description
```
Added value: +"The subject entity."
```

addedInput schema / properties / src_type / description

Added value: +"Entity kind for ``src``: set when the node is created, or filled in on an existing node that has none."

First observedv0.11.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so well: it states auto-creation, alias resolution, confidence bumping on re-assertion, rejected-relation handling with fallbacks, and exactly what the return value or error looks like.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value. The return format is cleanly separated, making it easy for an agent to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of annotations, the description is remarkably complete: it covers accepted relations, fallback behavior, alternative tool, return contract, and error shape. An agent has enough context to invoke this tool correctly without opening the schema.

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 baseline applies. The description reinforces behavioral facts like alias resolution and confidence bumps but does not add much parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with the specific verb and resource: "Assert a typed relation between two entities," with a concrete example. It clearly distinguishes this from relatives like memory_graph_unrelate and memory_relation_define by showing the assertion action and mentioning vocabulary growth only as a fallback.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear context for using the tool: it asserts relations, auto-creates entities, and handles rejected relations. It explicitly names memory_relation_define as the alternative for expanding vocabulary, though it does not explicitly contrast with memory_graph_unrelate or other sibling tools.

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