agent-memory-mcp

graph_path

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find a path between two entities in a memory graph, using optional time, project, namespace, direction, and depth constraints.

Instructions

Find a bounded directed/undirected path within one scope and temporal snapshot.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "source_entity_id": "<source_entity_id>",
      "target_entity_id": "<target_entity_id>"
    },
    "name": "graph_path"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`at`	No
`project`	No
`direction`	No	both
`max_depth`	No
`max_nodes`	No
`namespace`	No
`source_entity_id`	Yes
`target_entity_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.1Sep 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds no further behavioral details such as side effects, authentication, or rate limits, so it does not go beyond the annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, focused sentence with no redundancy or filler. It conveys the core functionality efficiently without unnecessary detail.

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?

The description provides high-level purpose but omits critical context such as parameter interpretations, expected output format, and edge cases (e.g., what happens when no path exists or when max_nodes is reached). Given the complexity of 8 parameters, this level of detail is insufficient for confident use.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The schema lists 8 parameters but none are described in the tool description. With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides no guidance on the meaning or usage of parameters like 'at', 'project', 'namespace', or 'max_depth', leaving users to infer from names alone.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: finding a path between two entities within a bounded scope and temporal snapshot. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like graph_neighbors and memory_search by focusing on pathfinding with directional and depth constraints.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for path queries but does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives like graph_neighbors or memory_search. It lacks explicit guidance on conditions or exclusions, so usage context is only inferred.

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