Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
quipu

quipu

Official
by intigraph
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Hybrid

quipu_knot

Destructive

Assert RDF triples into a bitemporal knowledge graph with optional SHACL validation, recording provenance, valid time, and snapshot-based fact replacement.

Instructions

Assert facts into the knowledge graph (with optional SHACL validation)

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actorNoWho is making the assertion
graphNoNamed-graph IRI to write into. Must already be registered committed-class (graph_create). Unknown IRI is an error, never interned. Omit for ROOT.
shapesNoOptional SHACL shapes in Turtle for validation
sourceNoProvenance source (episode, file, etc.)
turtleYesRDF data in Turtle format to assert
snapshotNoStable producer key (e.g. 'bobbin-chunks:myrepo'). Facts written with it, with or without replace_snapshot, are owned by source 'snapshot:<key>' and a later replace under the same key retracts them; 'source' is then ignored. Scoped to the target graph.
timestampNoTRANSACTION time: when this store came to believe the facts. Defaults to now. Also the valid-time unless valid_from is given.
valid_fromNoVALID time: when the facts became true OF THE WORLD, independent of when they were ingested. RFC 3339; a UTC offset (e.g. git's 2026-09-07T07:19:41+02:00) is normalised to Z and sub-second precision is dropped, because valid-time is compared as text. Malformed values are refused before anything is written. Omit to reuse timestamp — the absent case is byte-identical to the old behaviour.
blank_node_scopeNoExplicit document scope: distinct IDs separate identical loads; the same ID shares nodes across graphs only for identical input bytes.
replace_snapshotNoReplace the prior facts written under this snapshot key (diffed: unchanged facts stay live). Requires 'snapshot'.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.17.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description should explain what gets destroyed; instead it says nothing about snapshot ownership replacing prior facts, retraction paths, or the fact that an unknown graph IRI is rejected rather than interned. The only added behavioral detail, 'optional SHACL validation', duplicates the shapes parameter and is already in the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler and the verb leading. It is efficient to the point of under-specification rather than verbose, which is a structural weakness but not a conciseness failure.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 10-parameter, destructive, open-world write tool with no output schema, the description omits the consequences of the write (snapshot replacement/retraction, graph-must-exist precondition, validation failure behavior). The schema is complete, but the narrative an agent needs to choose and safely call this tool is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the per-parameter descriptions are unusually rich (valid-time vs transaction time, snapshot ownership, graph registration, blank-node scoping), so the schema carries all parameter meaning. The description adds only the pointer to SHACL validation via the shapes parameter and no syntax, defaults, or interaction detail beyond that.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Assert facts into the knowledge graph') plus a qualifier ('optional SHACL validation'), so an agent knows this is the write path. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as quipu_knot_stage, quipu_knot_promote, quipu_set, quipu_import or quipu_update, so the reader cannot tell which write tool to pick.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no statement of when to assert directly versus staging (quipu_knot_stage/quipu_knot_promote) or importing, and no prerequisites such as the target graph already existing. The parenthetical about validation is a capability note, not routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools