ColdState Knowledge Search
Server Details
ColdState Knowledge Search MCP Server
https://github.com/daniel-coldstate/coldstate-mcp
Semantic search over 64.6M knowledge entries — the structured alternative to web search APIs and web scraping for LLM agents. No crawling, no rate limits, sub-3s responses. Cloud-hosted at services.coldstate.ai
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
Each tool has a unique purpose: browsing documents, listing domains, explaining scoring, listing indexes, searching an index, and searching globally. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent `coldstate_verb_noun` pattern (e.g., `coldstate_browse_documents`, `coldstate_search_global`). No mixing of conventions.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for knowledge search functionality. Not too few to lack capability, not too many to be unwieldy.
The tool set covers core search, browsing, listing of indexes/domains, and explanation of scoring. Minor gaps like adding/updating documents are absent but likely outside the intended scope.
Available Tools
6 toolscoldstate_browse_documentsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Browse documents in a ColdState index. Returns titles, snippets, content, state classification, and E-scores.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max documents to return | |
| offset | No | Offset for pagination | |
| index_id | Yes | Index ID, e.g. idx_... |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint, so the description adds valuable behavioral context by detailing the return payload structure (titles, snippets, content, state classification, E-scores). It does not contradict annotations. It could improve by mentioning pagination behavior or rate limit implications of large offsets.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with zero waste: first establishes the action and scope, second details the return values. Every word earns its place and the description is appropriately front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple 3-parameter structure, good annotations, and lack of output schema, the description adequately compensates by detailing the return fields. It appropriately omits redundant pagination explanations (covered by schema) but could mention whether browsing is ordered or filtered by default.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, providing full documentation for index_id, limit, and offset. The description references 'ColdState index' which maps to the index_id parameter, but otherwise relies on the schema for parameter semantics, meeting the baseline for high-coverage schemas.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'browse' with clear resource 'documents' and scope 'ColdState index'. The verb choice implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'search' tools, and listing specific return fields (titles, snippets, E-scores) clarifies exactly what data is accessed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The verb 'browse' provides implied differentiation from sibling 'search' tools (coldstate_search, coldstate_search_global), suggesting use for exploration/listing versus querying. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or stated prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid index_id from list_indexes first).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
coldstate_domainsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
List all available knowledge domains in ColdState's global knowledge base with entry counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool returns 'entry counts' alongside domains, which provides useful payload context not in annotations. However, it omits details about return format, pagination, or what constitutes an 'entry'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with zero waste. Front-loaded with action verb ('List'), followed by resource identification, scope qualifier ('ColdState's global knowledge base'), and key behavioral detail ('with entry counts'). Every clause earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and read-only annotations covering safety profile, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and key return characteristic (entry counts). Lacks output schema specification, but 'entry counts' provides sufficient hint for a simple listing operation of this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has zero parameters (empty object), establishing baseline 4 per rubric. The description correctly omits parameter discussion since none exist, and requires no compensation for missing schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'List' with clear resource 'knowledge domains in ColdState's global knowledge base' and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on 'domains' versus documents, indexes, or search operations. The addition of 'with entry counts' specifies the scope of returned data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description implies usage (retrieving domain inventory with counts) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus siblings like coldstate_search or coldstate_browse_documents. No 'when-not' or alternative recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
coldstate_explainARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Explain why a specific document ranked for a query. Returns a per-term relevance breakdown and an overall match summary — deterministic and reproducible.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | The search query to explain against | |
| doc_id | Yes | Document ID, e.g. "doc_42" or "42" | |
| index_id | Yes | Index ID, e.g. idx_... |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent, and the description adds 'deterministic and reproducible', which provides additional behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second adds return value details and behavioral property. No redundant words, front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns (per-term relevance breakdown and overall match summary), which is sufficient for an agent to understand the output. Combined with annotations and schema, the tool is well-defined.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description does not add further meaning about parameter values or usage beyond what's in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it explains why a document ranked for a query, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'coldstate_search' and 'coldstate_browse_documents' by focusing on explanation rather than retrieval or browsing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly conveys when to use (to get per-term relevance and match summary for a specific doc-query pair) but does not explicitly mention when not to use or suggest alternatives. However, the context of siblings makes the use case clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
coldstate_list_indexesARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
List all your ColdState indexes with their status, mode, document count, and domain preset.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations establish read-only/idempotent safety profile. Description adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing return payload structure (status, mode, document count, domain preset), which compensates for missing output schema. Does not mention pagination, rate limits, or auth requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with front-loaded verb. Every clause earns its place: 'all your' establishes scope, and the four field specifications provide necessary return-value documentation without redundancy. No waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a zero-parameter read operation. Field enumeration provides sufficient compensation for missing output schema. Annotations cover safety properties. Minor gap: does not specify return type structure (array vs object) or pagination behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Zero parameters present. Per scoring rules, 0 params = baseline 4. No parameter semantic enrichment required or possible.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb ('List') and resource ('ColdState indexes') with specific scope ('all'). Enumerating return fields (status, mode, document count, domain preset) implicitly distinguishes this metadata listing from document-oriented siblings like search/browse, though explicit differentiation from coldstate_domains is absent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative recommendations provided. Given siblings include coldstate_domains and various search tools, the description misses opportunity to clarify whether to use this for inventory vs. domain management or when to prefer search over listing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
coldstate_searchARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Search a ColdState index by collection name or index ID. Returns ranked results with Ψ scores and state classification (CRYSTALLINE/FLUID/REACTIVE/DECOHERENT). Provide exactly one of collection or index_id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results to return | |
| query | Yes | The search query | |
| offset | No | Offset for pagination | |
| index_id | No | Index ID to search, e.g. idx_... (mutually exclusive with collection) | |
| collection | No | Collection name to search (mutually exclusive with index_id) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe, non-destructive behavior. Description adds value by detailing the return format (Ψ scores, state classification) which is not in annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, includes essential constraint. No wasted words. Eminently scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, but description explains return fields. While missing explicit behavior when both collection and index_id are provided, the mutual exclusivity statement implies an error. Given 5 parameters, the description covers enough for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds critical constraint of mutual exclusivity between 'collection' and 'index_id', which is not enforced by schema. Also describes return fields that map to query results, adding meaning beyond property types and descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'Search', resource 'ColdState index', and specifies return values (ranked results, Ψ scores, state classification). Distinguishes from sibling 'coldstate_search_global' by indicating this searches a specific index.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states the mutual exclusivity constraint: 'Provide exactly one of `collection` or `index_id`'. However, does not directly compare to sibling tools or specify when to use this vs alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
coldstate_search_globalARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Search ColdState's global knowledge base (48.4M+ entries across 35 domains including SCIENCE, MEDICINE, TECHNOLOGY, HISTORY, etc). Returns deterministically ranked results with Ψ relevance scores and a state classification. Optionally filter by domain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results to return | |
| query | Yes | The search query | |
| domain | No | Filter by knowledge domain (e.g. MEDICINE, SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, HISTORY, LAW, CODE). Case-insensitive. | |
| offset | No | Offset for pagination |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds value by specifying deterministically ranked results, Ψ relevance scores, and state classification, which are behavioral details beyond the annotations. No contradiction found.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes only essential details. No extraneous text, making it highly efficient for an AI agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description covers return format (ranked results, relevance scores, state classification) and mentions domain filtering. It lacks explanation of pagination or state classification meaning, but is largely complete for a search tool with well-documented schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds little beyond repeating the optional domain filter. No new contextual information about parameters is provided beyond what the schema already contains.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Search') and the resource ('ColdState's global knowledge base'), providing specific scope (48.4M+ entries across 35 domains) and differentiating from siblings like 'coldstate_search' by emphasizing global coverage and domain filtering.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for global searches but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'coldstate_search' or when filtering is recommended. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!