Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Neotoma

Neotoma

by markmhendrickson
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

create_relationships

Create multiple typed relationships between existing entities in one batch

Instructions

Create multiple typed relationships between existing entities in one batch

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": {
      "relationships": "<relationships>"
    },
    "name": "create_relationships"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
user_idNo
source_idNo
relationshipsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.25.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / relationships / items / properties / relationship_type / description
      Added value: +"Relationship type. The vocabulary is a runtime registry, not a closed enum: call list_relationship_types to read what this instance accepts, and register_relationship_type to add to it. Names are identifier-shaped and casing-agnostic (both SCREAMING_SNAKE and lower_snake are in use)."
    • removedInput schema / properties / relationships / items / properties / relationship_type / enum
      Removed value: -[
-  "PART_OF",
-  "CORRECTS",
-  "REFERS_TO",
-  "SETTLES",
-  "DUPLICATE_OF",
-  "DEPENDS_ON",
-  "SUPERSEDES",
-  "EMBEDS",
-  "works_at",
-  "owns",
-  "manages",
-  "part_of",
-  "related_to",
-  "depends_on",
-  "references",
-  "transacted_with",
-  "member_of",
-  "reports_to",
-  "located_at",
-  "created_by",
-  "funded_by",
-  "acquired_by",
-  "subsidiary_of",
-  "partner_of",
-  "competitor_of",
-  "supplies_to",
-  "contracted_with",
-  "invested_in"
-]
  2. Addedv0.15.0
  3. Removedv0.14.0
  4. Addedv0.12.1

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the meaningful precondition that entities must already exist and that the operation is a batch mutation, but says nothing about atomicity (partial vs all-or-nothing on failure), required permissions, or duplicate handling.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause (multiple, typed, existing entities, one batch) contributes to correct invocation.

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?

For a batch mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage on top-level params, the description is too thin. Failure semantics, permissions, and return behavior are all absent.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% for the three top-level parameters, and the description adds no meaning for user_id, source_id, or the relationships array shape. It does not compensate for the coverage gap, leaving required inputs like source_id unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource (create... relationships) with clear scope: multiple, typed, existing entities, one batch. The batch framing implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling create_relationship, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 phrase 'in one batch' implies the tool is for bulk creation rather than single links, and 'between existing entities' hints at a precondition. However, it never states when to prefer this over create_relationship or what to do if an entity does not yet exist.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools