Fetch an ontology from a remote URL or SPARQL endpoint and load it into the store for validation, querying, or governance.
Fetch an ontology from a remote URL or SPARQL endpoint and load it into the store
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Remote URL or SPARQL endpoint to fetch ontology from | |
| query | No | Optional SPARQL CONSTRUCT query (required if sparql=true) | |
| sparql | No | If true, treat url as a SPARQL endpoint and run a CONSTRUCT query |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions fetching and loading, but does not disclose side effects like overwriting, merging, or required permissions. Lacks transparency on destructive potential.
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?
The description is one sentence and front-loaded, but it is too brief given the tool has 3 parameters and multiple modes. More detail would improve usability without losing conciseness.
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?
Missing important context such as what 'load into the store' entails (replace, merge?), error conditions, and relation to other tools. No output schema, so return values are unexplained.
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 each parameter. The tool description adds no value beyond the schema, merely restating the purpose. Baseline 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 'Fetch' and the resource 'ontology', and specifies two modes (remote URL or SPARQL endpoint). It distinguishes from sibling tools like onto_import or onto_query by mentioning loading into the store.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as onto_import or onto_query. No mention of when not to use it or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.