Skip to main content
Glama
keonchennl

GraphDB MCP Server

by keonchennl
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one lists available graphs, while the other executes queries against them. There is no overlap in functionality, making it impossible to confuse their intended use.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Both tools use camelCase naming, which is consistent, but they follow different patterns: 'listGraphs' uses a verb-noun structure, while 'sparqlQuery' uses a noun-verb structure. This minor deviation prevents a perfect score.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only two tools, the server feels thin for a GraphDB domain, lacking essential operations like creating, updating, or deleting graphs or data. This minimal set is insufficient for typical database workflows.

    Completeness2/5

    The server covers listing and querying but misses critical CRUD operations for a GraphDB system, such as creating graphs, inserting data, or modifying content. This creates significant gaps that will hinder agent tasks.

  • Average 3.5/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • 1 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under GPL 3.0.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists graphs but doesn't describe how it behaves—e.g., whether it's read-only, safe, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format might be. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's operational traits.

    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?

    The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to understand at a glance.

    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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimal but incomplete. It lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and output details, which are important even for simple tools. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should do more to inform the agent about what to expect.

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

    Parameters4/5

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

    The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, as there are none to explain. It efficiently states the tool's purpose without unnecessary parameter information, meeting the baseline for tools with no parameters.

    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?

    The description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('all graphs in the repository'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'sparqlQuery', which might also involve graph operations, so it doesn't reach the highest score of 5.

    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?

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'sparqlQuery' or any alternatives. It lacks context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, offering only a basic statement of purpose without operational guidance.

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

  • Behavior3/5

    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.

    Conciseness5/5

    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.

    Completeness3/5

    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.

    Parameters3/5

    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.

    Purpose5/5

    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.

    Usage Guidelines4/5

    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.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

mcp-server-graphdb MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-server-graphdb MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/keonchennl/mcp-server-graphdb'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server