holonovel

Relationship Management

manage_relationship

Destructive

Set or read directed relationships between entities, NPCs, or factions, updating type, strength, and description in place and returning incoming and outgoing edges separately.

Instructions

Manage directed relationships between entities, NPCs, or factions. set is keyed by the ordered (entity_a, entity_b) pair and updates type, value, or description in place rather than duplicating; type is one of ally, rival, neutral, mentor, dependent, or suspicious, and value is an optional numeric strength. get returns outgoing and incoming edges separately. set requires the GM or Editor badge, persists to the Novel, and is undoable via manage_history (action: undo); get is read-only. Use when: setting or reading how two parties relate. Do NOT use when: tracking faction standing or progress — use manage_faction (action: update).

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`type`	No	Relationship type (set).
`value`	No	Optional relationship strength (set).
`action`	Yes	set or get.
`entity_a`	No	The source entity (set).
`entity_b`	No	The target entity (set).
`entity_id`	No	Entity whose relationships to list (get).
`description`	No	Optional description (set).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	No	Human-readable text envelope mirroring the structured result (REQ-001, REQ-548a).
`status`	Yes	Machine-readable result status: OK, NEED_INPUT, WARNING, PARTIAL, or an error category (REQ-002, REQ-548c).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.0.3Sep 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses that set requires the GM or Editor badge, persists to the Novel, is undoable via manage_history (action: undo), and that get is read-only. It also explains the in-place (non-duplicating) update semantics, which reconciles with destructiveHint=true rather than contradicting it.

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?

Dense and front-loaded, with the use/do-not-use routing at the end serving a clear purpose. Minor redundancy in restating the enum list that the schema already provides keeps it from a top score.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema and full annotation coverage present, the description still covers permissions, persistence, undo path, and get's return shape. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and unsafely-avoid mistakes.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: the relationship key is the ordered (entity_a, entity_b) pair, value is an optional numeric strength, and get returns outgoing and incoming edges separately. It slightly repeats the enum values already in the schema, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

States specific verbs (set/get) against a specific resource (directed relationships between entities/NPCs/factions) and explicitly differentiates from the sibling manage_faction. An agent can select this without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Contains an explicit 'Use when: setting or reading how two parties relate' and a 'Do NOT use when: tracking faction standing or progress — use manage_faction (action: update)', naming the alternative and its action. Nothing is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.