Register a named graph and bind it to a space, so ingest/read on that graph are governed by the space's membership and visibility. Owner/editor only. The named_graph_iri is globally unique — one graph belongs to exactly one space. If it's already registered (to any space) the call returns 409; graph bindings are permanent (no unregister/delete).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | ||
| description | No | ||
| named_graph_iri | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: ownership restriction, global uniqueness, 409 conflict on duplicate, and permanence (no unregister/delete). Also explains governance effects on ingest/read. Excellent coverage of side effects and constraints.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then critical constraints. Every sentence adds unique information; no filler or redundancy.
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?
Given no output schema, it omits success response details, but covers authorization, conflict behavior, permanence, and governance side effects. For a registration tool, this is nearly complete, though a brief note on return value would elevate it.
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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'named_graph_iri' (globally unique) but leaves 'slug' and 'description' unexplained. Since two of three parameters are not semantically defined, the description only partially compensates for the schema gap.
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?
States a specific action ('Register a named graph and bind it to a space') with a clear resource and governance purpose. Distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_registered_graphs' and 'add_space_member' by focusing on graph binding to a space.
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?
Conveys when to use it: to register a graph to a space, with owner/editor restriction. Provides context (uniqueness, permanence) but stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or exclusions. Sibling context makes the intended use clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, such as user management (activate, ban, assign role) vs. space management (create, add member, set visibility) vs. ingest/jobs (ingest_files, job_status, recover). A few pairs like grant_capability vs. grant_role_capability are similar but descriptions clarify the target, so an agent should be able to choose correctly.
All tools are prefixed with brainkb_ and the large majority follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., add_space_member, list_tokens, revoke_token). Some exceptions like brainkb_delta, brainkb_search, brainkb_whoami, and brainkb_capabilities break the pattern, but these are few and still readable.
With 49 tools, the server is far above the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. While the broad scope (user admin, spaces, graphs, ingest, provenance, auth) justifies many operations, the sheer number makes it heavy and potentially unwieldy for an agent to navigate.
The tool set covers a wide range of use cases: user/role/capability management, space administration, graph registration, ingest, job monitoring, provenance, search, and SPARQL. However, there are notable gaps such as removing a space member, deleting a space, or updating space metadata, which could leave agents without a way to fully manage the lifecycle of a space.