Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
montology

montology

by shinyobjectz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

ontology_words

Retrieve ontology vocabulary words as rows. Filter by kind: core, inner, adopted, custom, or empty for all.

Instructions

The vocabulary as rows (kind: core | inner | adopted | custom | empty for all).

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": "ontology_words"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, how results are ordered, whether pagination applies, or any side effects. The safety profile is entirely unspecified.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is extremely short and front-loaded, but it is not a complete sentence and omits an explicit action. The phrase 'empty for all' is terse but ambiguous.

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?

For a simple one-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate, but it does not clarify what 'vocabulary' refers to or how this tool fits into a workflow. It could be more helpful with an explicit verb and usage hint.

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 description adds meaning to the 'kind' parameter by enumerating possible values (core, inner, adopted, custom) and explaining that empty string returns all. This goes beyond the schema, which only declares a string with a default.

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 identifies the resource (vocabulary) and output shape (rows) with a filter dimension (kind), making its purpose reasonably clear despite lacking an explicit verb. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like ontology_check or ontology_add, but the semantics are distinct enough.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The mention of 'empty for all' implies an optional filter, but there is no context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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