Execute SPARQL queries on the loaded ontology store to extract specific data and answer knowledge-based questions.
Run a SPARQL query against the loaded ontology store
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | SPARQL query string |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose key behavioral traits such as whether the query is read-only, authentication requirements, performance implications, or error handling. With no annotations provided, the description should cover these aspects, but it only states the basic function.
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, concise sentence that communicates the core purpose efficiently. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words or details.
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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not mention the format of the returned results, potential errors, or how to handle large query outputs. An AI agent would lack context on what to expect from the 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?
The input schema defines the 'query' parameter with a description ('SPARQL query string'), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional information beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 action ('run a SPARQL query') and the target ('against the loaded ontology store'). It is specific and distinct from siblings that perform other operations, though it does not explicitly differentiate from similar query tools like onto_search or onto_stats.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or contexts where this tool is inappropriate. This leaves the agent without decision criteria for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.