Skip to main content
Glama
littlebigbrains

@littlebigbrain/mcp

by littlebigbrains
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

lbb_rdf

DestructiveIdempotent

Store and extend RDF/OWL knowledge graphs by importing Turtle, N-Triples, N-Quads, or TriG documents, or by adding axioms via SPARQL INSERT DATA.

Instructions

Store and extend complete RDF/OWL documents through MCP. import accepts Turtle/N-Triples/N-Quads/TriG without conversion; update executes INSERT DATA for additive edits. Replacing/removing axioms is unsupported; use a new versioned LBB graph for a revised document. Named RDF graphs are unsupported; Turtle/N-Triples use the default graph, and dataset formats must contain only default-graph quads. These write graph facts, distinct from lbb_configure's native schema metadata. A first RDF write selects RDF-native storage, which refuses later property-graph commits; choose the write workflow before bootstrap. Retries deduplicate by content unless idempotency_key is supplied. A completed write schedules publication; inspect action=publication and verify using lbb_query entailment=owl.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
graphNoGraph to target; defaults to the connection's graph
actionYesSelects the variant (one of: import, update).
detailNoResponse detail level. Defaults to compact.
formatNo
sourceNoComplete RDF document. Preserves OWL axioms, RDF lists, labels, comments, and external IRIs as graph facts.
updateNoSPARQL INSERT DATA text to add axioms. Submitted unchanged. DELETE/WHERE/CLEAR and named graphs are currently unsupported and fail without mutation.
base_iriNo
idempotency_keyNo
blank_node_scopeNoStable document scope for blank labels across import chunks.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.5.2
    • removedInput schema / properties / branch
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Branch to target; defaults to the connection's branch",
-  "type": "string"
-}
  2. Addedv0.5.1

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: import accepts formats without conversion, update is additive INSERT DATA, the first RDF write locks storage mode and refuses later property-graph commits, retries deduplicate by content unless idempotency_key is supplied, and completed writes schedule publication. These details align with the write-oriented annotations and explain important 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but every sentence carries an operational constraint or decision point. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then efficiently covers formats, unsupported operations, storage implications, retry behavior, and publication without filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a complex write tool with nine parameters and no output schema, the description covers most critical context: supported actions, formats, unsupported operations, storage-mode consequences, retries, and post-write publication/verification. The remaining gap is the lack of guidance on base_iri and the meaning of detail levels, so it is not fully complete.

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?

Schema descriptions already cover several parameters, and the description adds meaning for format by listing accepted RDF formats and the default-graph restriction, and for idempotency_key by explaining content-deduplication behavior. However, base_iri remains undocumented in both the schema and description, so parameter semantics are strong but not complete.

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 a specific action: store and extend complete RDF/OWL documents via MCP, with the two variants import and update acting on RDF graph facts. It also distinguishes the tool from sibling lbb_configure, which handles native schema metadata, so an agent can tell them apart.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: replacing/removing axioms is unsupported and should instead use a new versioned LBB graph; named RDF graphs are unsupported; and verification should use lbb_query entailment=owl. This clearly routes an agent away from misuse.

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