robot-tool-mcp

by musen-lab

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

robot_validate_profile

Check ontology conformance to an OWL 2 profile. Outputs violations and exits with non-zero code if non-conforming.

Instructions

Check ontology conformance to an OWL 2 profile.

Profiles: EL, RL, QL, DL, Full. The output contains any violations found. ROBOT exits with non-zero code if the ontology does not conform to the specified profile.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "robot_validate_profile"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`input`	No
`output`	No
`profile`	No	DL
`working_directory`	No
`catalog`	No
`prefixes`	No
`add_prefix`	No
`noprefixes`	No
`verbose`	No
`strict`	No
`xml_entities`	No
`extra_args`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.2May 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided. The description discloses that output contains violations and that ROBOT exits with non-zero code on non-conformance. This is useful but lacks details on side effects, file modification, or required permissions.

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 extremely concise: two sentences and a list of profiles. No wasted words, and key information is front-loaded.

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 12 parameters, no parameter descriptions in schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It covers basic purpose and exit code but leaves most of the tool's behavior and configuration unexplained.

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

Parameters2/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It mentions profiles but does not map them to the 'profile' parameter or describe other parameters (input, output, etc.). The schema has 12 parameters, none explained.

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 checks ontology conformance to OWL 2 profiles, lists available profiles (EL, RL, QL, DL, Full), and describes output and exit code behavior. It is specific and distinct from siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for validating conformance to a profile but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like robot_verify or robot_report. No guidance on when not to use it is provided.

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