Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kilonova MCP

Kilonova MCP

by MilnaOS
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

kb_schema

Retrieve the field schema for a knowledge base entity type, or list all schema types for a topic when no entity type is given.

Instructions

Show field schema for an entity type in a KB topic. Call with no entity_type to list all schema types for the topic.

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>"
    },
    "name": "kb_schema"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topicYesKB topic
entity_typeNoOptional: specific entity type

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Show' implies a safe read operation, which is useful, but it says nothing about permissions, whether an unknown topic/entity_type errors or returns empty, or what the response shape looks like.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the primary use stated first and the special-case invocation immediately after. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 2-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the key branch on entity_type. The main residual gap is that, absent an output schema, it doesn't sketch what a 'field schema' entry contains.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by explaining the meaningful behavior of the optional entity_type: omitting it changes the result from a single schema to a list of all schema types. That is semantics the schema alone does not convey.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Show field schema for an entity type in a KB topic.' That clearly separates it from read/write tools like kb_load and kb_write, though it never explicitly names a sibling or states how it differs from kb_topics (which arguably also relates to topic structure).

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?

The second sentence gives a concrete conditional ('Call with no entity_type to list all schema types'), which is real invocation guidance. But there is no guidance on when to choose this tool over kb_topics or kb_search, and no stated prerequisites such as the topic needing to already exist.

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