Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-archimate

mcp-archimate

by byrondelgado
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

recommend_relationship

Read-only

Recommends valid ArchiMate relationship types for given source and target elements, using their IDs or types, with an optional intent filter.

Instructions

Recommend valid relationship types for source/target ids or types.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "recommend_relationship"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
intentNo
source_idNo
target_idNo
source_typeNo
target_typeNo
strict_archimateNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds no further behavioral details—such as whether the tool checks against a metamodel or what happens with missing parameters. Since annotations cover safety, this is adequate but not insightful.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence with no fluff, placing the core action first. However, the extreme brevity sacrifices necessary detail; a sentence or two more would improve clarity without harming conciseness.

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?

With 6 parameters, an output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain parameter choices (e.g., id vs type, strict_archimate), leaving the agent under-informed for correct selection and invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only hints that 'source/target ids or types' are used, ignoring 'intent', 'strict_archimate', and the interplay between id and type parameters. This is insufficient for correct invocation.

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?

The description clearly states the tool recommends valid relationship types for source/target IDs or types, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from most siblings like 'add_relationship' or 'get_relationship_compatibility', though the latter is closely related and not explicitly differentiated.

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 versus alternatives like 'get_relationship_compatibility' or 'add_relationship'. The description does not explain the intended context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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