Creates a relation linking two entities in the Geo knowledge graph. Specify source, target, and relation type to define structured connections between knowledge nodes.
Create a relation between two entities
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | Yes | Relation type entity ID | |
| position | No | Position string for ordering | |
| toEntity | Yes | Target entity ID | |
| fromEntity | Yes | Source entity ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the write behavior is known. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as side effects, idempotency, uniqueness constraints, permissions, or what happens when an invalid type or entity ID is supplied.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no filler. It is concise and easy to parse, though it offers no structured guidance about parameters or behavior beyond the bare statement of purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple four-parameter create operation, the schema covers the parameters well, and the description identifies the core purpose. However, there is no mention of the operation's return value, error behavior, or prerequisites, and the description does not clarify how the relation creation fits into the broader entity model.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a clear description. The tool description adds only the general notion of 'two entities', which maps to fromEntity and toEntity, but provides no extra meaning beyond what the schema already conveys.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Create') and resource ('a relation') with a meaningful qualifier ('between two entities'). It distinguishes the tool from entity/property/type creation, but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools such as delete_relation or submit_signed_transaction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The use case is implied: an agent should call this when it needs to create a relation between two entities. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, no mention of alternatives, and no conditions such as requiring the entities to already exist or requiring a valid relation type.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.