Skip to main content
Glama
markmhendrickson

Neotoma

by markmhendrickson
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

restore_relationship

Restore a deleted relationship. Creates an immutable restoration observation that outranks earlier observations. Relationship becomes visible in snapshots and queries again; later explicit deletion remains possible.

Instructions

Restore a deleted relationship. Creates an immutable restoration observation that outranks earlier observations. Relationship becomes visible in snapshots and queries again; later explicit deletion remains possible.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reasonNoOptional reason for restoration (audit)
user_idNoOptional. Inferred from authentication if omitted.
source_entity_idYesSource entity ID
target_entity_idYesTarget entity ID
relationship_typeYesExact relationship type of the existing edge — the same vocabulary create_relationship writes. 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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.25.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / relationship_type / description
      Previous value: -"Exact relationship type of the existing edge. Accepts the same set create_relationship writes: structural types (PART_OF, REFERS_TO, EMBEDS) and domain types (works_at, related_to, owns)."New value: +"Exact relationship type of the existing edge — the same vocabulary create_relationship writes. 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. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.22.2
    • changedInput schema / properties / relationship_type / description
      Previous value: -"Relationship type (e.g. PART_OF, REFERS_TO, EMBEDS)"New value: +"Exact relationship type of the existing edge. Accepts the same set create_relationship writes: structural types (PART_OF, REFERS_TO, EMBEDS) and domain types (works_at, related_to, owns)."
    • 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

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose the crucial traits: the restoration is immutable/append-only, it outranks earlier observations, the edge becomes queryable again, and later deletion remains possible. It stops short of auth requirements, idempotency, or error behavior for restoring a non-deleted relationship.

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?

Three tight sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler; each sentence adds a distinct behavioral fact. Very close to optimal, though the second and third clauses are dense enough to be minimally re-readable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains the mutation's semantics and durable effect well, which is what an agent chiefly needs. It omits failure modes (e.g., restoring a relationship that isn't deleted) and permission context, leaving a modest gap.

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 five parameters (including the runtime-registry relationship_type vocabulary). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Restore a deleted relationship') and then differentiates itself from create/delete semantics by explaining it creates an immutable restoration observation that outranks earlier observations. An agent can distinguish this from restore_entity or delete_relationship using the temporal-observation model alone.

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?

Usage is implied by the described effect ('Relationship becomes visible in snapshots and queries again'), which tells the agent when this is the right operation, but no sibling is named and there are no explicit when-not or prerequisite conditions. It is adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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