Link or unlink a memory to an entity within the same scope to enable graph-based retrieval.
Link/unlink a memory and entity in the same scope for graph-assisted retrieval.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| role | No | mentions | |
| unlink | No | ||
| project | No | ||
| entity_id | Yes | ||
| memory_id | Yes | ||
| namespace | No | ||
| confidence | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the tool can link or unlink, which aligns with the readOnlyHint=false annotation. However, it does not explain side effects, idempotency, whether unlink is destructive, or any permissions/namespace implications. The annotations provide some transparency, but the description adds little beyond the basic operation.
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?
The description is a single focused sentence that communicates the primary action and purpose without filler. It is concise and well-structured for a tool description.
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?
The tool has seven parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, yet the description only addresses the core linking action. It omits return behavior, parameter semantics, and edge cases such as unlink behavior or scope handling. The description is too sparse to fully support an agent in using the tool correctly.
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?
Only memory_id and entity_id are indirectly explained by the description; role, unlink, project, namespace, and confidence are not described at all. The schema names and types hint at meanings, but with 0% schema description coverage the description fails to clarify important parameters like role and confidence. This makes correct invocation harder than necessary.
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 clearly states the action ('Link/unlink') and the resources involved ('memory and entity'), which distinguishes it from entity-only or memory-only tools. The phrase 'for graph-assisted retrieval' adds context about why this link matters. It could be slightly more explicit about creating or removing a graph edge, but the core purpose is understandable.
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?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like relation_add or memory_update. It mentions graph-assisted retrieval but does not explain when linking is preferable or what scenarios require it. The 'same scope' constraint is mentioned but not elaborated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.