TestGraph

Assert an evidence-backed location

assert_location

Idempotent

Add a governed location assertion for an existing eligible subject. Resolve the subject and any existing Place first. New Places require a stable canonical key plus a durable identifier. Every assertion requires source provenance. Coordinates are WGS84 only and are never silently geocoded.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`value`	No
`source`	Yes
`valid_to`	No
`predicate`	Yes
`qualifiers`	No
`subject_id`	Yes
`valid_from`	No
`visibility`	No	private
`observed_at`	No
`object_place`	No
`idempotency_key`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed2 schema fields changedAug 30, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / version_check

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Required live deployment token. Call get_server_info immediately before this write and pass write_version_token unchanged. Stale or missing tokens are rejected before any write occurs.",
-  "maxLength": 64,
-  "minLength": 64,
-  "type": "string"
-}

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "subject_id",
-  "predicate",
-  "source",
-  "idempotency_key",
-  "version_check"
-]New value: +[
+  "subject_id",
+  "predicate",
+  "source",
+  "idempotency_key"
+]

Changed2 schema fields changedAug 26, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / version_check

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Required live deployment token. Call get_server_info immediately before this write and pass write_version_token unchanged. Stale or missing tokens are rejected before any write occurs.",
+  "maxLength": 64,
+  "minLength": 64,
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "subject_id",
-  "predicate",
-  "source",
-  "idempotency_key"
-]New value: +[
+  "subject_id",
+  "predicate",
+  "source",
+  "idempotency_key",
+  "version_check"
+]

First observedAug 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already establish read/write and idempotency traits, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: assertions are governed, new Places require a canonical key and durable identifier, coordinates must be WGS84, and geocoding is never done silently. These details go well beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Four concise sentences, each earning its place. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by important preconditions and constraints. There is no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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?

The tool is complex with 11 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, yet the description covers only the core operation and a few critical constraints. It lacks return/confirmation behavior, failure semantics, and clarification of temporal/visibility parameters, leaving notable gaps for an agent trying to invoke it correctly.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates partially by explaining key parameters: subject_id via 'existing eligible subject', source via 'source provenance', object_place via canonical key/identifier requirements, and value via WGS84/no-geocoding constraints. However, several parameters such as predicate values, qualifiers, validity windows, observed_at, and visibility receive no semantic guidance.

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 action ('Add') and the resource ('a governed location assertion') for an existing eligible subject. It is specific enough to distinguish this tool from siblings like get_location_assertions and resolve_location_assertion, and it highlights the unique aspect of evidence-backed, governed assertions.

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 gives useful preconditions: resolve the subject and any existing Place first, and requires source provenance for every assertion. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but it does imply the sequencing needed for correct use.

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

All TestGraph tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Tools cluster into clear functional families — classification, location, reviews, deliberations, and system — and potentially overlapping operations are explicitly cross-referenced (e.g., enrich_subject vs correct_subject_fact, affirm vs propose reclassification). The main hazard is the resolve_subject / resolve_subject_type / resolve_subject_hierarchy trio, whose near-identical prefixes could mislead an agent at first glance despite well-written descriptions.

Naming Consistency4/5

The surface is dominated by a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern with stable verb families: get_*, list_*, resolve_*, set_*, save_*, create_*, register_*, and submit_*. Minor deviations — bare-verb fetch and search, and the noun-led vocabulary_index — break the pattern slightly but do not obscure it.

Tool Count3/5

34 tools is heavy and above the preferred range, and the classification family alone accounts for ten tools with substantially duplicated vocabulary guidance. The count is partially earned, however, because the server genuinely spans several subsystems — reviews, subject classification, location assertions, deliberations, and governance — each with its own lifecycle.

Completeness4/5

Each subsystem has thorough lifecycle coverage: deliberations (create/claim/contribute/get/list/resolution), reviews (save/fetch/delete/list/visibility), location (assert/list/resolve), and classification (propose/affirm/reopen/relationships/aliases). Minor gaps include no way to edit review content, no direct list-all-subjects endpoint, and no retirement path for fields or aliases.

Resources

Need Help?