Upload the current ontology store to a remote SPARQL endpoint by providing its URL and an optional named graph, enabling external synchronization or publication.
Push the current ontology store to a remote SPARQL endpoint
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| graph | No | Optional named graph IRI | |
| endpoint | Yes | Remote SPARQL endpoint URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, this description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Push', implying a write operation, but provides no details on safety, authentication requirements, or whether data is replaced/merged.
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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It is concise but could be slightly more descriptive without losing brevity.
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 should provide more context about consequences, error handling, and success criteria. It is incomplete for a meaningful tool interaction.
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?
Both parameters (endpoint and graph) are described in the schema with 100% coverage. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so a 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?
The description uses the verb 'Push' and specifies the resource: 'current ontology store to a remote SPARQL endpoint'. It clearly states the action and target, making the tool's purpose easy to grasp.
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 lacks any guidance on when to use or avoid this tool. There is no mention of alternatives like onto_pull or conditions for using onto_push, leaving the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.