Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Krusgraph

by com.krusgraph
OverviewDiscussions(1)Admin

Draft domains and contracts

domain_draft
Read-only

Proposes domains from the plan. Returns JSON with interfaces and an ODCS contract per domain. Changes nothing. Errors: {error, kind, hint}.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "workspace": "<workspace>",
      "source": "<source>"
    },
    "name": "domain_draft"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
schemaNoSchema in the source. Default "dbo".dbo
sourceYesLakehouse, warehouse or SQL database, name or id.
confirmedNoRelationships the user confirmed, added to the plan. Default none. Example: [{"source": "orders", "source_cols": ["ship_to_id"], "target": "addresses", "target_cols": ["address_id"]}].
workspaceYesFabric workspace, name or id.
check_rowsNotrue: with row counts. Default false.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "properties": {
-    "result": {
-      "title": "Result",
-      "type": "string"
-    }
-  },
-  "required": [
-    "result"
-  ],
-  "title": "domain_draftOutput",
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. Added

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description reinforces this with 'Changes nothing' and, more valuably, discloses the return shape (interfaces and an ODCS contract per domain) and the error envelope {error, kind, hint}. That error contract is information an agent cannot get from the schema or annotations and helps it plan failure handling.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the output, then the no-side-effects note and the error shape. Nothing is redundant, though the 'Errors: {error, kind, hint}' line is telegraphic enough that its meaning depends on the reader recognizing a convention.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming the return payload and error structure. It is slightly thin on what 'the plan' refers to and whether a prior plan/validate step is required, but for a read-only five-parameter tool this covers what an agent needs to call it.

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%, including the default for schema, the meaning of check_rows, and a concrete example for confirmed, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, which is acceptable at full coverage but keeps this at the baseline.

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 verb and resource: 'Proposes domains from the plan', and adds what the response contains (interfaces plus an ODCS contract per domain). It is clear what the tool produces, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-name siblings like ontology_draft or semantic_model_draft, leaving the agent to infer the domain-vs-ontology distinction.

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 phrase 'from the plan' implies this runs after a plan exists, which is real contextual guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement and no routing between this and the other *_draft tools, so selection still requires inference.

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

All Krusgraph toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources