Skip to main content
Glama

brainkb

by org.brainkb

brainkb_login

Authenticate to BrainKB with the user's credentials and cache the JWT for THIS session only (isolated per caller). The password/token are never echoed.

Uses single sign-on: one login mints a refresh token, cached for THIS session,
which is exchanged on demand for per-service access tokens (query_service,
usermanagement, …). Falls back to a legacy per-service token if the backend
has no SSO. On the hosted multi-user remote you can skip this and instead have
your client send an 'Authorization: Bearer <token>' header (a refresh token
unlocks all services).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailYes
base_urlNo
passwordYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and excels: it discloses that the JWT is cached per-session and isolated per caller, that passwords/tokens are never echoed, that SSO mints a refresh token exchanged for per-service tokens, and that a legacy fallback exists when SSO is unavailable. This provides substantial behavioral insight without contradicting any structured data.

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?

The description is a compact paragraph with a clear front-loaded purpose and every sentence adding detail on SSO, fallback, or usage alternatives. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary but each sentence serves a purpose, making it well-structured for the tool's complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (SSO, fallback, session caching), the description is remarkably complete. It covers key behaviors, edge cases (no SSO, hosted remote), and security details. An output schema exists, so return values are properly delegated, and the description provides all other necessary context for an agent to use the tool safely and effectively.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% description coverage for parameters. The description adds meaning to email and password via 'user's credentials,' but it does not explain base_url at all, leaving a significant gap for that parameter. The description focuses on behavior rather than parameter roles, so it only partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Authenticate to BrainKB with the user's credentials' – a specific verb and resource. It also differentiates from siblings like globus_login and use_token by describing its credential-based SSO mechanism and session caching.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context on when to use the tool, including an explicit alternative for hosted remote environments: 'On the hosted multi-user remote you can skip this and instead have your client send an Authorization: Bearer <token> header.' It mentions fallback behavior but does not explicitly exclude other auth tools like finish_login or globus_login.

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

All brainkb toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count2/5

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.

Completeness3/5

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.

Resources