Skip to main content
Glama

Visualize Relationships

visualize_relationships
Read-onlyIdempotent

Generate a Mermaid diagram of entry relationships to reveal how journal entries connect; filter by relationship type and explore connected entries by ID or depth.

Instructions

Generate a Mermaid diagram visualization of entry relationships

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNo
idNo
relNo
keepNo
modeNo
pathNo
tagsNoFilter entries by tags
textNo
typeNo
depthNoRelationship traversal depth
limitNoMaximum entries to include
messageNo
entry_idNoSpecific entry ID to visualize (shows connected entries)
descriptionNo
workspace_idNo
project_numberNo
relationship_typeNoFilter to show only this relationship type (e.g., blocked_by, implements)

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeNoError code (e.g. VALIDATION_ERROR, INTERNAL_ERROR)
depthNo
errorNoHuman-readable error message
legendNo
detailsNoAdditional error context
mermaidNo
messageNo
successNo
categoryNoError category (validation, query, connection, internal)
root_entryNo
suggestionNoSuggested fix for the error
entry_countNo
recoverableNoWhether the error is recoverable
aggregated_errorsNoDetails of individual errors in a multi-step operation
relationship_countNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv9.0.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds only that the output is a Mermaid diagram, without explaining how traversal depth, limits, or relationship filters affect the diagram, or any other behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 single sentence is front-loaded, has zero filler, and states the purpose directly. It is appropriately concise, even though the overall definition is under-specified for its 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?

This is a complex tool with 17 parameters, yet the description provides only a one-line purpose statement. While the output schema covers return values and annotations cover safety, the description does not explain how to invoke the tool meaningfully or how its many optional parameters shape the visualization.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The description adds no meaning for any of the 17 parameters. With only 29% schema description coverage, 12 parameters such as 'q', 'id', 'rel', 'keep', 'mode', 'path', 'text', 'type', 'message', 'description', 'workspace_id', and 'project_number' are left unexplained in both the schema and the description.

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?

The description names a specific verb ('Generate'), output format ('Mermaid diagram'), and resource ('entry relationships'), so the basic purpose is clear. However, it does not differentiate this tool from the sibling 'team_visualize_relationships' or clarify how it differs from related tools like 'link_entries' or 'search_entries'.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent must infer that it is for visualization rather than data retrieval, but there is no explicit routing guidance.

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