List your Personal Access Tokens (metadata only — the secret is never shown): id, name, prefix, created/last-used/expiry, and whether each is active/revoked/expired. Use the id with brainkb_revoke_token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the secret is never shown and lists the exact metadata fields returned, including status indicators (active/revoked/expired). This goes beyond minimal disclosure and sets accurate expectations for a read-only list operation.
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, each earning its place. The first sentence concisely lists the included metadata fields, and the second sentence provides a practical cross-reference to the revoke tool. There is zero fluff, making it highly efficient.
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 zero-parameter list tool, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: it lists tokens, returns metadata only (including status), and never exposes the secret. The cross-reference to brainkb_revoke_token completes the context for typical usage. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently specifies the return content.
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 tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description adds no parameter details (as there are none), but it does explain the output structure and the usefulness of the 'id' field, which indirectly communicates semantics for downstream use.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('Personal Access Tokens') and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, prefix, timestamps, status). It distinguishes from sibling tools like brainkb_create_token, brainkb_use_token, and brainkb_revoke_token by focusing solely on listing metadata.
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 explicitly tells the user to use the returned 'id' with brainkb_revoke_token, providing a direct usage hint. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the mention of metadata-only and the secret never shown makes its scope clear, differentiating it from token creation or usage tools.
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.