Skip to main content
Glama
littlebigbrains

@littlebigbrain/mcp

by littlebigbrains
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

lbb_embeddings

Read-only

Check embedding status for classes in a knowledge graph: see serving versions, backfill progress, lag, and model. Preview candidate facts with coverage and examples before searching.

Instructions

Search setup, read only: embeddings declared on classes (an embedding on a class covers its subclasses; one model per graph). list shows each embedding's status (serving and building version, backfill progress, lag) and the graph's model; get shows one; preview shows every candidate fact of a class with its coverage and examples, and the exact text of sample instances, and stores nothing. Declare, refresh, or change the model with lbb_embeddings_manage; search with lbb_query mode=search. list is the first step of planning a search (lbb_inspect action=guide has the recipe).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dimNo
fromNopreview/declare: the fields, e.g. ["label", "description", "calls/label"]. Omit for the automatic choice; on an existing embedding, omit to keep its fields.
irisNopreview: the instances to show instead of a sample.
nameNoget: the embedding name.
classNopreview/declare: the class IRI.
graphNoGraph to target; defaults to the connection's graph
modelNomodel: the graph's new model. preview/declare: omit it; a graph has one model (the graph's, or the platform's default for the first embedding).
titleNopreview/declare: the field that names each hit, e.g. "display_name". Omit for the ontology's name property (skos:prefLabel, a property declared rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:label, else rdfs:label); on an existing embedding, omit to keep its name. preview reports title_source and, when the labels read as keys, title_suggestion.
actionYes
detailNoResponse detail level. Defaults to compact.
sampleNo
excludeNopreview/declare: fields to drop from the automatic choice.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.5.2

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds valuable context: preview 'stores nothing', embeddings on a class cover subclasses, and one model per graph. It also explains the status fields shown by list and the exact behavior of preview. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is a dense single paragraph, front-loaded with 'Search setup, read only'. It packs key facts (coverage semantics, action outputs, alternative tools) without excessive verbosity, though it could be broken into shorter sentences for easier scanning.

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 12 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main actions and clarifies core semantics, but omits details on dim, sample, detail, and exclude. It also does not describe return formats, leaving some agent decisions to inference. Adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 75% (missing descriptions for dim, sample, and action). The description explains the action parameter implicitly through list/get/preview and references class/name, but it does not clarify dim or sample. It partially compensates for the schema gap but leaves two parameters ambiguous.

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 tool's purpose: 'Search setup, read only' for embeddings, and differentiates the three actions (list, get, preview) with distinct behaviors. It also names sibling tools (lbb_embeddings_manage, lbb_query) to avoid ambiguity.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states when to use this tool: 'list is the first step of planning a search' and provides the recipe location (lbb_inspect action=guide). It also directs mutation tasks to lbb_embeddings_manage and search to lbb_query, making the usage boundary clear.

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