Links a document to related records by ID and type, letting you associate documents with contacts, assets, devices, or passwords; existing links are skipped.
Relates a document to other records.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Links a document to other records. | |
| documentId | Yes | Document identifier. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare a non-destructive mutation, but the description adds nothing beyond that: no permissions required, no side effects, and no mention of the skip-if-already-linked behavior that lives only in the nested schema. The description carries little behavioral value on its own.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficiently sized, though the lack of any usage or behavioral notes means the structure has no layers beyond the one-line purpose.
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?
Given the rich schema and annotations declaring a safe mutation, the description is minimally adequate. It could still say more about the link operation's effect and idempotency (already linked records are skipped), which matters for a create tool with nested payload and no output schema.
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 effectively 100%, with ItemTypeId mappings, ItemId formats, the 1-100 limit, and skip behavior all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond repeating the tool purpose, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 pair: it relates a document to other records, which is distinct from sibling read tools like gorelo_list_document_related_items. However, it never explicitly names that alternative or clarifies that this creates links rather than updates existing ones.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as listing existing related items first. The agent must infer the call context entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.