Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kilonova MCP

Kilonova MCP

by MilnaOS
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

kb_load

Load a specific knowledge base entity record by topic, type, and name to retrieve stored project context for reuse.

Instructions

Load a specific entity record from a KB by name.

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": {
      "topic": "<topic>",
      "entity_type": "<entity_type>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "kb_load"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesEntity name
topicYesKB topic
entity_typeYesEntity type folder name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Load' implies a read, but it never says whether the operation is read-only, what happens when the entity does not exist, or whether topic/entity_type must already exist.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of why behavioral and usage context are missing.

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?

The tool is simple (three required string parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), so the schema does most of the work. Still, with no annotations and no output schema, the description should have covered the composite-key lookup and failure behavior, and it does not.

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 each of the three parameters is already documented in the schema. The description's only addition, 'by name', actually understates the composite key (topic + entity_type + name) required for the lookup, so it adds no real value beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: loading a single entity record from a KB. It is clear on its own, but it gives no differentiation from siblings like kb_search or dot_load, which plausibly read from the same KB.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no statement of when to use this versus kb_search (to discover a name) or dot_load. The phrase 'by name' implies the caller must already know the entity name, but that prerequisite is never stated.

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