GraphDB MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the 'read-only' behavioral trait, which is crucial for safety, but lacks details on other aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response structure. This is a minimal but adequate disclosure given the simple query nature.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose and key constraint ('read-only'). Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (executing queries with parameters) and no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers the core purpose and safety ('read-only') but lacks guidance on result handling or advanced usage, leaving gaps for the agent to infer.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no extra details on query syntax or format implications). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Execute'), resource ('SPARQL query'), and target ('GraphDB repository'), and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'listGraphs' by specifying query execution rather than listing. It's precise and unambiguous.

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?

The description explicitly states 'read-only', which provides clear context for when to use this tool (for queries that don't modify data). However, it doesn't mention when not to use it or explicitly compare it to the sibling tool 'listGraphs' beyond the implied difference in purpose.

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