skosmos-mcp

traverse_concepts

Perform BFS traversal over broader, narrower, and related relationships to explore connected concepts in a SKOS vocabulary.

Instructions

BFS traversal using a mix of broader, narrower, and/or related relationships

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>",
      "vocabulary": "<vocabulary>",
      "relationships": "<relationships>"
    },
    "name": "traverse_concepts"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`uri`	Yes	Starting concept URI
`lang`	No	Language code
`depth`	No	Maximum traversal depth
`vocabulary`	Yes	Vocabulary identifier
`relationships`	Yes	Relationship types to traverse

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided; description only specifies BFS traversal but omits details about side effects, read-only nature, pagination, or output format. This leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with key action (BFS traversal) and specifies relationship types. No extraneous 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?

Despite good schema coverage, the description lacks details on return values, traversal order, or limits. For a traversal tool with no output schema, more context is needed to set expectations.

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%, so parameters are well-documented structurally. Description adds context that the tool uses a mix of relationships, but does not explain parameter constraints or advanced usage beyond schema.

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 it performs BFS traversal over concept relationships (broader, narrower, related). This distinguishes it from siblings like broader_concepts which only handle one relationship type.

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 versus alternatives such as broader_concepts or narrower_concepts. The description does not mention scenarios where a mixed traversal is preferable.

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

Deploy Server