Skip to main content
Glama
markmhendrickson

Neotoma

by markmhendrickson
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

get_relationship_snapshot

Get the current snapshot of a specific relationship with provenance

Instructions

Get the current snapshot of a specific relationship with provenance

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
source_entity_idYesSource entity ID
target_entity_idYesTarget entity ID
relationship_typeYesRelationship 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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.25.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / relationship_type / description
      Previous value: -"Type of relationship"New 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."
    • removedInput schema / 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. Changed1 schema field changedv0.22.2
    • changedInput schema / properties / relationship_type / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "PART_OF",
-  "CORRECTS",
-  "REFERS_TO",
-  "SETTLES",
-  "DUPLICATE_OF",
-  "DEPENDS_ON",
-  "SUPERSEDES",
-  "EMBEDS"
-]New 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"
+]
  3. Addedv0.15.0
  4. Removedv0.14.0
  5. Addedv0.12.1
  6. Removedv0.11.0
  7. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet 'snapshot' and 'provenance' are undefined. It does not say whether this is a read-only operation, whether the snapshot is point-in-time, what provenance includes, or what happens when the relationship does not exist.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though borderline terse given the tool's complexity.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a domain concept ('snapshot with provenance') whose meaning is not explained, the description leaves too much for the agent to infer. The schema is fully documented, but the behavioral and semantic context is missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, including the runtime-registry note for relationship_type. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Get) and a specific resource (current snapshot of a relationship) and adds the provenance dimension. It is clear enough to act on, but it never names or contrasts itself with near-siblings like retrieve_entity_snapshot, list_relationships, or retrieve_field_provenance, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this versus retrieve_entity_snapshot (entity vs relationship), list_relationships (listing vs single), or retrieve_field_provenance. The description offers only implied usage and no exclusions or alternatives.

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