Plan ontology changes by diffing the current store against proposed Turtle. Reveals added or removed classes and properties, blast radius, risk score, and locked IRI violations.
Terraform-style plan: diff current store against proposed Turtle. Shows added/removed classes/properties, blast radius, risk score, and locked IRI violations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| new_turtle | Yes | New ontology as inline Turtle content |
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 explains the tool's purpose and outputs but does not disclose whether it is read-only or modifies state, nor does it mention authentication or rate limits. The 'blast radius' and 'risk score' hint at analysis without side effects, but not explicit.
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?
Single sentence efficiently conveys purpose, key outputs, and analogy. No wasted words. Front-loaded with the 'Terraform-style plan' concept.
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?
Despite no output schema or annotations, the description adequately covers tool behavior and outputs (added/removed classes, blast radius, risk score, IRI violations). Missing details about output format or connection requirements, but sufficient for a plan tool.
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?
Only one parameter (new_turtle) with 100% schema coverage. Description mentions 'proposed Turtle' but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score 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?
Description clearly states it performs a Terraform-style plan diffing the current store against proposed Turtle. It lists specific outputs: added/removed classes/properties, blast radius, risk score, and locked IRI violations. This differentiates it from siblings like onto_diff or onto_apply.
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?
The description implies use for planning before applying changes, but does not explicitly state when to use over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. No guidance on prerequisites or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.