Skip to main content
Glama
putervision

state-memory-mcp

by putervision
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

manage_edges

Destructive

Add, remove, or batch-create typed edges between existing nodes to model dependencies, references, and visual state links without altering node data.

Instructions

Manage typed graph relationships between nodes (actions: add, remove, batch_add, link_visual). Use manage_edges instead of manage_nodes when creating or modifying relationships between existing entities rather than entity data itself.

Returns created edge record, batch count, or visual link confirmation.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNoThe semantic relationship type.
edgesNoArray of edge objects for batch_add.
actionYesThe edge management action to execute: add, remove, batch_add, link_visual.
projectNoTarget project name or slug.
metadataNoOptional metadata for link_visual.
source_idNoID of the source node.
target_idNoID of the target node.
propertiesNoOptional metadata properties for the edge.
source_urlNoOptional URL where the visual state was captured.
relationshipNoRelationship type for link_visual (e.g. renders_state, blocked_by_visual_state).
visual_state_idNoVisual Memory snapshot/state ID for link_visual.
visual_descriptionNoOptional text description for the visual state.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.3.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / action / description
      Previous value: -"The edge management action to execute."New value: +"The edge management action to execute: add, remove, batch_add, link_visual."
    • addedInput schema / properties / action / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "add",
+  "remove",
+  "batch_add",
+  "link_visual"
+]
  2. Changed6 schema fields changedv1.2.1
    • removedInput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -true
    • removedInput schema / properties / edges / items / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -{}
    • removedInput schema / properties / metadata / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -{}
    • removedInput schema / properties / properties / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -{}
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[
+  "action"
+]
  3. Addedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so mutation semantics are covered structurally. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the three distinct return shapes (created edge record, batch count, visual link confirmation), which matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of saying what a remove destroys or whether edges are recoverable.

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?

Three sentences with the action list front-loaded and zero filler; each sentence carries distinct information (scope, sibling routing, return shape). The action enumeration is mildly redundant with the schema enum but is defensible as orientation material.

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 12-parameter, nested-object, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers scope, sibling disambiguation, and expected returns, which are the main gaps an agent would hit. It leaves the batch_add edge object shape and link_visual prerequisites entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given 100% schema coverage.

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 all 12 parameters carry their own descriptions and the description need not re-document them. The description only restates the four action values already listed in the action enum's own description, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 resource ('typed graph relationships between nodes') and enumerates the four supported actions inline. It goes further by explicitly naming the sibling it is not (manage_nodes) and the boundary condition that separates them, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

The 'Use manage_edges instead of manage_nodes when...' sentence gives a clear selection rule against the most confusable sibling. It does not, however, explain when to pick add vs batch_add vs link_visual, leaving intra-tool action selection to the enum names.

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