Maps an ontology class to a clinical code by adding a SKOS mapping triple. Provide class IRI, code, and system (e.g., ICD10) to enrich the class with a crosswalk reference.
Enrich an ontology class with a SKOS mapping triple from the clinical crosswalks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | Clinical code to map to | |
| system | Yes | Code system (e.g. "ICD10") | |
| class_iri | Yes | IRI of the ontology class to enrich |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states the action (adds a triple) but does not disclose whether it is destructive, idempotent, requires prior steps, or what the effect on existing data is. Behavioral traits like side effects are missing.
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?
A single concise sentence that efficiently conveys the core action. No extraneous words, but could possibly add more context without becoming verbose.
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?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It lacks explanation of the return value, what a 'SKOS mapping triple' is, and how the enrichment affects the ontology. For a tool with three required parameters, more context is needed.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the verb 'Enrich', a specific resource 'ontology class', and what is added 'SKOS mapping triple from the clinical crosswalks'. This provides a distinct purpose that differentiates it from sibling tools like onto_map or onto_align.
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?
No guidance on when to use or when not to use this tool. It does not mention alternatives or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage without explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.