Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AIMFP

AIMFP

by aryanduntley
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

add_interactions

Record multiple function dependencies in a single call by providing an array of interaction tuples, each specifying source, target, type, and description.

Instructions

Batch-record function dependencies by ID. More efficient than multiple add_interaction calls for tracking all cross-function dependencies.

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": {
      "interactions": "<interactions>"
    },
    "name": "add_interactions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
interactionsYesArray of tuples [(source_function_id, target_function_id, interaction_type, description), ...] - type: 'call', 'chain', 'borrow', 'compose', 'pipe'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.37.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read, non-destructive mutation. The description adds the batch nature but no additional behavioral context about side effects, permissions, or constraints. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant information.

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?

Given the simple structure (one parameter fully described in schema, no output schema) and the presence of annotations, the description is adequately complete, though it could mention return behavior.

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%, and the description does not add further meaning beyond the schema's detailed description of the 'interactions' parameter.

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 clearly states the tool records function dependencies in batch by ID, and distinguishes it from the sibling 'add_interaction' tool by noting efficiency for multiple dependencies.

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?

It explicitly recommends use for batch recording and positions it as more efficient than calling add_interaction multiple times, providing clear guidance for when to use it.

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