Validate RDF/OWL syntax from a file path or inline Turtle content, returning errors to ensure correct ontology structure.
Validate RDF/OWL syntax. Accepts a file path or inline Turtle content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes | Path to an RDF file OR inline Turtle content | |
| inline | No | If true, treat input as inline content rather than a file path |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description covers input modes but omits side effects, auth needs, or return behavior. Validation is implied non-destructive but not stated.
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?
One sentence, 10 words, efficiently communicates purpose and input modes with no redundancy.
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?
Lacks return value specification (e.g., validation success/failure, error details). With no output schema, agents need to infer output meaning.
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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides (input types).
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?
Clearly states verb 'Validate' and resource 'RDF/OWL syntax', distinguishing it from siblings like onto_lint, onto_shacl, and onto_dl_check which focus on different aspects.
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?
Implies usage when file path or inline Turtle content needs syntax validation, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.