Skip to main content
Glama

graph_flow

Declare architectural flows and pipelines using natural arrow expressions, automatically creating or updating links without manual JSON crafting.

Instructions

Declare architectural flows and pipelines using natural arrow expressions like 'block:A -> block:B -> block:C' or 'A -[calls]-> B'. Automatically creates or updates links without complex JSON crafting.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
flowYes
actorNo
reasonNo
projectRootNo
taskContextIdNo
includeStructuredNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.3.3
    • addedInput schema / properties / taskContextId
      Added value: +{
      +  "minLength": 1,
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
  2. Addedv0.3.2

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It says the tool 'creates or updates links,' but it does not explain overwrite behavior, reversibility, permissions, or what happens to existing links. For a mutating graph tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 description is two sentences with no filler: the first states purpose and gives examples, the second states the core behavior and value. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete for safe autonomous invocation. An agent can craft a flow string but remains uncertain about optional parameter meanings, update side effects, and return behavior.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The required 'flow' parameter is helpfully explained with natural-language syntax examples. However, schema description coverage is 0%, and the other five parameters (actor, reason, projectRoot, taskContextId, includeStructured) are left undefined beyond their names. The description does not compensate for this gap.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Declare'), names the resource ('architectural flows and pipelines'), and provides concrete DSL examples that make the tool's function unmistakable. It also contrasts itself with JSON-based graph mutation, helping distinguish it from siblings like graph_mutate and graph_patch.

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 arrow-expression examples ('block:A -> block:B -> block:C') clearly illustrate how to use the tool, and the phrase 'declare architectural flows and pipelines' states the intended context. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it, leaving some routing to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.