Skip to main content
Glama

Search Emergent's fact book

search_facts
Read-onlyIdempotent

Keyword search over Emergent Technologies' fact book. Returns matching facts with their ids, topic, claim, source page, the date each was last checked (asOf) and status (approved or draft). Use it to cite a specific fact; an empty result means the fact book does not state it.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_facts"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMost results to return (default 8)
queryYesWords to look for, e.g. 'who removes personal details'
topicNoLimit to one topic

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hintNo
metaYes
countYes
factsYes
queryYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value with the empty-result semantics ('the fact book does not state it'), but omits other behavior such as ranking or matching rules for keywords.

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?

Two sentences with no waste: purpose, return fields and the empty-result rule, all front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so the brief return-value summary is enough, and the empty-result caveat fills the main gap for a read-only search. Minor residual gap is how keyword matching behaves relative to the semantic sibling.

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%, so query, limit and topic are fully documented in the schema with enums and defaults. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Keyword search over Emergent Technologies' fact book') and signals what it returns. The word 'keyword' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling ask_emergent, though no sibling is named, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Gives a clear use case ('Use it to cite a specific fact') plus an interpretation rule for empty results. It stops short of naming an alternative such as ask_emergent for non-citation questions or stating 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.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources