Creates a parent, child, link, or blocking relationship between two Productboard entities by providing source and target UUIDs.
Create a relationship between two Productboard entities.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | Yes | Relationship type: 'parent', 'child', 'link', 'isBlockedBy', 'isBlocking' | |
| entityId | Yes | Source entity UUID | |
| targetId | Yes | Target entity UUID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether duplicate relationships are rejected or idempotent, whether required permissions apply, what happens to an existing relationship of the same type, or whether the operation is reversible via delete_entity_relationship.
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 wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly a symptom of missing information rather than disciplined trimming.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is insufficient. The description should at minimum indicate whether it returns the created relationship, how conflicts are handled, and how it relates to sibling creation tools like set_entity_parent.
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 100%, with each parameter (entityId, targetId, type) documented directly in the schema including the enumerated relationship types. The description adds no meaning beyond that, 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?
The description names a specific verb and resource ('Create a relationship') and scopes it to Productboard entities, so the agent knows what the tool does. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as set_entity_parent (which also creates a parent relationship) or create_note_relationship, leaving ambiguity about which creation tool to pick.
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. An agent cannot tell from the description whether to use this versus set_entity_parent for a 'parent' relationship, or versus create_note_relationship for note-backed entities.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.