Register a new baseline ontology by providing its TTL content. The ontology is saved to the catalog and becomes available for inspection, search, and composition.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | ||
| tags | No | ||
| label | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| ttl_content | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states that the ontology is 'saved to the catalog' which indicates a persistent, write operation. But it does not disclose what happens on duplicate slugs, validation requirements for TTL, or potential side effects. The outcome is described, but edge-case behaviors are absent.
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 succinct sentences that front-load the primary action and then state the outcome. Every word contributes to the core message with no 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?
The tool has five parameters and no annotations, but the description only covers one parameter's semantics. While the output schema covers return values, the description lacks critical context for working with slug and metadata fields. It is adequate for an agent familiar with ontology cataloging but leaves gaps for a first-time caller.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only mentions 'TTL content' while ignoring required 'slug' and optional 'tags', 'label', and 'description'. The description does not explain that slug is likely a unique identifier or provide any constraints, so parameters beyond ttl_content are left undefined.
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 'Register' and resource 'baseline ontology' with the action of providing TTL content. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like compose, inspect_ontology, and search_* by indicating this is the tool for adding new ontologies to the catalog.
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?
It establishes that the ontology becomes available for inspection, search, and composition, implying this tool should be used to initially add ontologies before those operations. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.