Skip to main content
Glama
permanu

SuperSkill

by permanu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

graph_related

Read-only

Discover related notes for a vault note by traversing FTS and edge links from frontmatter and wikilinks, limited to the current project.

Instructions

Related notes via the FTS/edge index (related frontmatter + wikilinks), jailed to this project.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hopsNoNumber of hops (default 1, max 8)
pathYesRelative path to the vault note
workspace_pathNoAbsolute thread workspace directory; must map to this project. Omit only when the server cwd is the thread workspace.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv0.15.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / hops / description
      Previous value: -"Number of hops (default 1)"New value: +"Number of hops (default 1, max 8)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / hops / maximum
      Added value: +8
    • addedInput schema / properties / hops / minimum
      Added value: +1
    • changedInput schema / properties / hops / type
      Previous value: -"number"New value: +"integer"
    • addedInput schema / properties / workspace_path
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Absolute thread workspace directory; must map to this project. Omit only when the server cwd is the thread workspace.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv0.6.1

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the underlying data sources (frontmatter + wikilinks) and the project-jailing constraint. It does not describe the shape or ordering of results, so it stops short of rich behavioral disclosure.

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 tight sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and a parenthetical that earns its place by naming the index sources. No filler, though the parenthetical is jargon-dense.

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 read-only lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the mechanism and scope an agent needs to choose it correctly. The only gap is that it never says what the call returns (e.g., a list of related note paths), which would help against the output-schema-less surface.

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 hops, path, and workspace_path, including the hops range. The description adds no numbering, default, or format detail beyond the schema, so 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 resource (related notes) and the mechanism (FTS/edge index built from related frontmatter + wikilinks), which is more than a tautology. The 'jailed to this project' clause implicitly distinguishes it from graph_cross_project, though it doesn't name the sibling outright.

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?

The 'jailed to this project' scope implies when this is appropriate versus the cross-project sibling, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no named alternative such as graph_traverse. Usage must be inferred.

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