create_relationsCreate multiple active-voice relations between entities in a knowledge graph to link stored memories and support persistent context across chats.
Create multiple new relations between entities in the knowledge graph. Relations should be in active voice
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| relations | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| relations | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "relations": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "from": {
+ "description": "The name of the entity where the relation starts",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "relationType": {
+ "description": "The type of the relation",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "to": {
+ "description": "The name of the entity where the relation ends",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "from",
+ "to",
+ "relationType"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "relations"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the safety profile (non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world), so the description only needs to add context. It adds the bulk-creation and active-voice convention, but says nothing about what happens on partial failure, duplicates, or missing entities — relevant given idempotentHint=false.
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?
Two short sentences, scope front-loaded, no filler. Minor looseness in the trailing convention sentence, but nothing wasted.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, dependencies (entities must pre-exist), duplicate handling, and batch failure behavior are unaddressed for a non-idempotent write tool, leaving the agent to guess.
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?
Schema coverage of the top-level parameter is 0% (the nested from/to/relationType fields do carry descriptions). The active-voice note adds useful meaning for relationType formatting, but the description never explains the array-of-objects shape or batch semantics beyond what the schema shows.
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?
States a specific verb (create) and resource (relations between entities in the knowledge graph), plus the bulk nature ('multiple'). It is distinguishable from create_entities/add_observations by resource, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no alternative named, and no prerequisites such as whether the referenced entities must already exist. 'Relations should be in active voice' is a content convention, not invocation guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.