Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Schema.gov.it MCP Server

Schema.gov.it MCP Server

Official
by italia
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Suggest Improvements

suggest_improvements
Read-onlyIdempotent

Identify structural issues in your ontology including cycles, unused classes, missing domain/range, and large non-scheme classes.

Instructions

Analyze the ontology for structural issues.

Args:

  • limit: Maximum issues per category (default: 20)

Returns:

  • possible_cycles: Classes with mutual rdfs:subClassOf

  • unused_classes: Classes with no instances and no subclasses

  • properties_missing_domain_or_range: Properties with incomplete domain/range declarations

  • large_classes_without_scheme: Classes with >1000 instances and no evidence of skos:ConceptScheme membership

Note: Both analyses run in parallel.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "suggest_improvements"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds value by noting parallel execution and specific return categories, but does not contradict annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Well-structured with Args, Returns, Note sections. Every sentence adds value, no waste.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given one parameter, no output schema, and complexity of ontology analysis, the description adequately covers return values and parallel execution behavior.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description fully explains the limit parameter with default value and meaning: 'Maximum issues per category (default: 20)'.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Description clearly states the tool analyzes ontology for structural issues, listing specific categories (cycles, unused classes, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like check_overlaps and check_quality by focusing on improvement suggestions.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage context is implied ('analyze the ontology for structural issues') but no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives or when not to use.

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