get_entity_linksRetrieve graph edges for an event, trip, place, or person to explore related entities and their connections.
List graph edges for an event, trip, place, or person. ($0.05; API key required)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entity_id | Yes | ||
| entity_type | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | ||
| links | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.28.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context by stating the cost ($0.05) and auth requirement (API key), which are behavioral constraints not present in the structured metadata. It does not contradict any annotation.
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 sentence of about 13 words with no filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, with cost and auth appended parenthetically. Every token earns its place.
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 tool's simplicity, two required params, and an existing output schema, the description covers the purpose, entity types, cost, and auth requirement. The term 'graph edges' is somewhat technical but the output schema presumably defines the return shape. The only notable gap is lack of usage guidance, but that is covered by another dimension.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by enumerating the allowed entity_type values (event, trip, place, person) and implying entity_id is the identifier of that entity. However, it does not describe what IDs look like or the exact meaning of entity_id beyond that implication.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('graph edges') and names the valid entity types (event, trip, place, person). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_entity_assets or get_person_connections.
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?
It implies when to use the tool by scoping it to a specific entity type and graph edges, but it does not explicitly say when to use it over alternatives like get_life_graph or get_person_connections. There is no when-not-to-use guidance or mention of complementary tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.