Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kremis

Kremis

by TyKolt
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Hybrid

kremis_ingest

Add an entity or relation to a knowledge graph by providing a numeric entity ID, attribute name, and value.

Instructions

Add an entity or relation to the Kremis knowledge graph

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": {
      "entity_id": "<entity_id>",
      "attribute": "<attribute>",
      "value": "<value>"
    },
    "name": "kremis_ingest"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
valueYesThe value for this attribute
attributeYesThe attribute name (e.g. 'name', 'type', 'connected_to')
entity_idYesThe entity ID (numeric identifier)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.18.2

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Without annotations, description provides minimal behavioral info. 'Add' implies mutation but doesn't explain idempotency, error handling, or effects on existing data. Entity creation vs property addition is unclear.

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?

Single sentence is concise but lacks necessary detail. Not an example of effective compression; under-specification reduces utility.

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 mutation tool with 3 params and no output schema, description fails to cover behavior like upsert semantics, attribute validation, or relation handling. Sibling tools suggest distinct operations but no context is provided.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions, so baseline is 3. Tool description adds no extra meaning beyond schema. Could explain valid attributes or value formats.

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?

Description states verb 'Add' and resource 'entity or relation' to knowledge graph, distinguishing it from sibling tools like lookup or traverse. However, it's ambiguous whether this creates entities or just adds properties to existing ones.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No explicit context or exclusion criteria. Agent must infer usage from tool name and sibling list.

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