Corpus-KB

by moliver28

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

add_relation

Add a directed relation between two entities with a specified type and weight to model connections in a knowledge base.

Instructions

Add a directed relation between two entities.

Args: source_id: Source entity ID. target_id: Target entity ID. rel_type: Type of relation (CALLS, DEPENDS_ON, CONTAINS, etc.). weight: Relation strength (0.0 to 1.0).

Returns: Created relation details.

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_id": "<source_id>",
      "target_id": "<target_id>"
    },
    "name": "add_relation"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`weight`	No
`rel_type`	No	related_to
`source_id`	Yes
`target_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It discloses creation of a directed relation but does not mention side effects, destructive behavior, authorization needs, or constraints. Limited transparency.

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 short, front-loaded with the action, and includes a structured list of arguments and return. Every sentence is relevant, no fluff.

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 simple mutation tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers operation, parameters, and return. Lacks error conditions or constraints, but overall adequate.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so description compensates by explaining each parameter: source_id, target_id, rel_type with examples (CALLS, DEPENDS_ON, CONTAINS), and weight with range (0.0 to 1.0). Adds significant meaning beyond schema, though could be more precise about valid rel_type values.

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 explicitly states 'Add a directed relation between two entities,' providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_entity and add_tag.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The description only explains parameters without context.

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