(Admin) Create a new role/group — e.g. an 'External' collaborator group — which can then be assigned with brainkb_assign_role.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| category | No | Content | |
| description | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds context by noting the admin requirement and that the role must be assigned after creation, but it does not mention side effects, idempotency, or permission requirements beyond the 'Admin' tag.
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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the action, provides an example, and links to the next step without any fluff or repetition.
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 create tool with a fairly self-explanatory schema, the description covers the basic action and next step. However, it omits details about the response, how to verify the role was created, or interactions with related tools like brainkb_available_roles, leaving some context gaps.
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 schema has no descriptions (0% coverage) and the description does not explain the parameters. The example 'External' hints at the 'name' parameter, but nothing is said about 'category' or 'description', leaving them semantically underspecified.
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 creates a new role/group, using the specific verb 'Create' and resource 'role/group'. It also distinguishes the action from assignment by referencing brainkb_assign_role as the follow-up step, which separates it from sibling tools like assign_role.
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 description indicates this is an admin-only operation and that the created role is meant to be assigned later via brainkb_assign_role, providing a clear usage context. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like create_permission, but the flow is clear enough for a simple create-then-assign pattern.
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.