Combine ranked search seeds with a SPARQL query to retrieve governed knowledge graph results while enforcing mode-specific validation and query budgets.
Fuse ranked search seeds with a SPARQL query. Existing mode-specific validation and query budgets apply.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| sparql | No | ||
| valid_at | No | ||
| embedding | No | ||
| group_ids | No | ||
| seed_limit | No | ||
| entity_type | No | ||
| query_options | No | ||
| seed_variable | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.17.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered without description help. The description adds one piece of genuine behavioral context not present in annotations: that per-mode validation and query budgets govern execution, which hints at possible failures or throttling. It does not say what fusion produces, whether seeds are mandatory, or what happens when both query and sparql are omitted.
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?
Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler, which is structurally clean. The terseness crosses into under-specification, though, so the brevity is not fully earning its place.
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?
For a ten-parameter hybrid retrieval tool with nested options, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema, the definition is far too thin. An agent cannot determine required input combinations, what modes are legal, or what the fused result looks like from this text.
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 0% across ten parameters, including a nested query_options object, an embedding array, valid_at, seed_limit, and seed_variable, so the description carries the full explanatory burden. It only indirectly hints that a 'mode' exists and that 'seeds' relate to the query/embedding inputs, leaving most parameter meaning, formats, and interactions undocumented.
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 names a specific action ('Fuse ranked search seeds with a SPARQL query'), which conveys that this is a combined retrieval-plus-SPARQL operation. However, 'fuse' and 'seeds' are internal jargon, and nothing distinguishes it from closely related siblings such as quipu_hybrid_search, quipu_unified_search, or quipu_query, which an agent could easily pick instead.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer this over the many other search siblings, and no prerequisites. The clause 'Existing mode-specific validation and query budgets apply' is a caveat about execution, not guidance about selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.