Skip to main content
Glama
proticom

Gnosys

by proticom
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

gnosys_traverse

Read-onlyIdempotent

Traverses stored memory relationships breadth-first to return an indented tree of IDs, titles, confidences, depths, and connecting edges, filtered by direction, depth, and relationship type.

Instructions

Traverse stored memory relationships breadth-first, returning an indented text tree of IDs, titles, confidences, depths, and connecting edges. direction is out, in, or both (default); depth defaults to 3 with range 1..10. relTypes accepts stored relationship strings, including references, supersedes, leads_to, follows_from, requires, validates, contradicts, and corroborates; omission follows all types. Example: {"memoryId":"arch-012","depth":2,"relTypes":["requires"]}. To create relationships from source code, use gnosys_trace instead, which requires gnosys_toolset {"set":"standard"}.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
depthNoMax traversal depth (default: 3, max: 10)
memoryIdYesStarting memory ID
relTypesNoStored relationship types to follow (default all), e.g. leads_to, follows_from, requires, validates, contradicts, corroborates, references, supersedes
directionNoEdge direction to follow (default: both)
projectRootNoProject root path; routes the call to that project's store.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / relTypes / description
      Previous value: -"Relationship types to follow, e.g. ['leads_to','requires']"New value: +"Stored relationship types to follow (default all), e.g. leads_to, follows_from, requires, validates, contradicts, corroborates, references, supersedes"
  2. First observedv7.0.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and closed-world behavior, and the description adds the traversal algorithm (BFS), output shape, and defaults for direction and depth. It does not discuss performance/pagination on large graphs, but the added behavioral context is substantial.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and output shape, then defaults, then the alternative. The example and relationship-type list add length but each earns its place; only minor redundancy with schema-documented defaults.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description fully describes the return format, and it covers defaults, valid values, and the sibling alternative. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 100%, so baseline is 3; the description goes further by spelling out default and range for depth, the enum semantics of direction (out/in/both default), relTypes omission behavior, and a concrete example call. This meaningfully clarifies how the parameters interact.

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 ('Traverse stored memory relationships breadth-first') and describes the exact output form (indented text tree of IDs, titles, confidences, depths, edges). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling gnosys_trace by scoping that tool to relationship creation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly routes relationship-creation use cases to gnosys_trace, which is a clear when-not/alternative clause. However, it does not distinguish itself from other retrieval siblings like gnosys_recall or gnosys_hybrid_search.

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