(Admin) Assign a role/group to a user by email (e.g. 'Lab Member', 'External', or a custom group). The user must already have a profile (created on first login/registration). NOTE: assigning the 'Admin'/'SuperAdmin' role is SuperAdmin-only (hierarchy: SuperAdmin > Admin).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| role | Yes | ||
| Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: admin-only access, user profile prerequisite, and role hierarchy restrictions. However, it does not mention reversibility, what happens if the user or role does not exist, or whether changes take effect immediately. This is adequate but not rich.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with '(Admin)' and all content is useful. No redundancy or filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and constraints.
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 the simple 2-parameter schema with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, prerequisite, and restrictions. It does not describe return values or error behavior, but for this tool's complexity, the provided context is sufficient for correct invocation.
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?
The input schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It explains email as the user's email and role with examples ('Lab Member', 'External', custom group), and notes the special Admin/SuperAdmin restriction. This adds meaningful meaning beyond the bare schema.
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 the tool's function: 'Assign a role/group to a user by email' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_role and remove_role by focusing on assignment to an existing user, and the examples ('Lab Member', 'External', custom group) further clarify scope.
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?
Provides clear usage context: the (Admin) prefix signals permission level, the prerequisite that the user must already have a profile, and the restriction that Admin/SuperAdmin assignment is SuperAdmin-only. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, the guidance is sufficient for an agent to know when this tool applies.
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.