Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
RDF4J MCP Server

RDF4J MCP Server

by odysa
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

select_repository

Select the RDF4J repository to use for SPARQL queries and knowledge graph exploration. The choice remains active until a new repository is selected.

Instructions

Select a repository to use as the default for subsequent operations. This persists until another repository is selected.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "repository_id": "<repository_id>"
    },
    "name": "select_repository"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repository_idYesRepository ID to select

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait of persistence ('This persists until another repository is selected'), but it does not mention potential failure modes (e.g., invalid repository ID) or return behavior. For a simple setter, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 two short sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the action and the persistence behavior. There is no wasted wording, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

The tool is low-complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), and the description covers what it does and its persistent effect. With no annotations, it could be more explicit about error cases, but the description is sufficiently complete for a simple setter operation.

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 100% with a clear description for repository_id ('Repository ID to select'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Select') and resource ('repository') plus the purpose ('use as the default for subsequent operations'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_repositories and get_current_repository.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when you want to set the default repository for subsequent operations. It also provides context about persistence, but it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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