Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
skosmos-mcp

skosmos-mcp

by jsilvanus
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

get_concept

Retrieve complete concept details, including broader, narrower, and related concepts, from a SKOS vocabulary.

Instructions

Get full concept details including broader, narrower, and related concepts

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "uri": "<uri>"
    },
    "name": "get_concept"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
uriYesConcept URI
langNoLanguage code for labels
vocabularyNoVocabulary identifier

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only hints at output content but lacks details on read-only nature, authorization, performance, or side effects.

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?

Single sentence with clear verb and resource. Efficiently conveys core purpose without superfluous text.

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?

Given no output schema and multiple sibling tools, description lacks detail on response structure and does not help agent decide when to prefer this aggregated tool over specific relationship tools.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. Description does not add meaning beyond schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves concept details including relationships. It distinguishes from siblings by implying aggregation, but does not explicitly differentiate from narrower, broader, related concepts tools.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings like broader_concepts, narrower_concepts, etc. The description is purely descriptive and does not provide selection criteria.

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