Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ontopoc

ontopoc

by Longado
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

compare_reference

Compares a human-written reference ontology JSON against the current ontology to show matching, extra, and missing objects and relations.

Instructions

拿一份人写的参考本体（JSON）和这次的本体对照：哪些对象、关系对上了，哪些多了、少了。

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "saved_as": "<saved_as>",
      "reference": "<reference>"
    },
    "name": "compare_reference"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
saved_asYes运行的保存名，来自 list_runs 或 build_ontology
referenceYes参考本体的 JSON
reference_nameNo参考本体的名字，默认"参考本体"

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Compare' strongly implies a read-only operation and the description does disclose the output categories (matched/extra/missing), which is real value. However, it never confirms the comparison is non-destructive, does not say whether results are persisted or merely returned, and gives no permission or size expectations.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core action, with the result categories appended after a colon. Nothing is redundant. Slightly dense punctuation but no wasted wording.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and result shape. What it omits is whether the comparison output is saved, how large the reference JSON may be, and any prerequisite that the run must exist. Reasonably complete but not thorough.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description adds modest meaning by framing 'reference' as a human-authored ontology and 'saved_as' as this run's ontology, clarifying the two-sided comparison. It adds no format or structural detail about the nested reference object beyond what the schema says.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb (compare) and both resources: a human-written reference ontology in JSON and this run's ontology. It even names the comparison dimensions (matched, extra, missing), which lets an agent distinguish it from build_ontology or confirm_ontology. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this when it has a reference JSON and wants to validate a run. There is no explicit statement of when not to use it, no prerequisite ordering relative to build_ontology, and no mention of what to do if no reference exists. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools