Skip to main content
Glama

explore_topic

Map the conceptual landscape around a topic ACROSS THE PAPER CORPUS. Searches papers and their chunks, not the layer-2 claim graph — for published CLAIMS on a topic use methodist_explore_topic. Instead of returning a ranked list of papers, returns N distinct conceptual clusters with representative chunks. Built on keyConcept LLM-extracted markers diversification. Use for "what approaches exist to X" queries — answers with thematic map rather than ranked list. Better than search when you want breadth over depth. Temporal bias note: for topics with dense recent literature (e.g. current LLM research), the default ordering favors recent papers because vector similarity finds them first; specify dateTo for historical exploration of mature topics, or dateFrom+dateTo to slice a specific era. Diversification cap (maxClustersPerPaper) limits how many clusters can have the same source paper as representative chunk — protects against single-paper dominance.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateToNoFilter: published on or before (ISO date)
detailNostandard
run_idNoOptional. The active methodist run_id (as returned by the methodist diagnose / get_current_dose door). Pass it whenever you call this tool while working inside a run, so the call is attributed to that run for the §8 usage crosscheck — attribution is run-anchored, so it stays correct even if your access token refreshes mid-run. Must be YOUR run: a run_id owned by a different principal, or a non-existent run_id, is rejected.
conceptYesTopic or research question to explore (e.g. "in-context learning", "retrieval augmented generation")
dateFromNoFilter: published on or after (ISO date)
categoriesNoarXiv category filter
vectorModelNogemini
clusterCountNoNumber of distinct conceptual approaches to return
maxClustersPerPaperNoDiversification cap: maximum clusters that may use the same source paper as representative chunk. Lower = more paper diversity across clusters; higher = allow dominant papers to be representative in more clusters. Default 2.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations provided, but description fully covers behavior: searches papers/chunks, not claim graph, returns clusters with representative chunks, includes diversification cap and temporal bias note.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Description is detailed and well-structured, but somewhat long. However, every sentence adds meaningful information, so earns a 4.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 9 parameters and no output schema, description sufficiently explains return type (clusters with chunks) and provides enough context for correct invocation.

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?

Schema coverage is 78%, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by explaining run_id attribution, diversification cap context, and how to use date parameters for temporal slicing.

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?

Clearly states it maps conceptual landscape across paper corpus, returning clusters not ranked list. Distinguishes from sibling tool methodist_explore_topic for claims.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says use for 'what approaches exist' queries, recommends over search for breadth, and gives temporal bias guidance with date parameters.

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.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clear distinct purposes, but some overlap exists between explore_topic and methodist_explore_topic, and between find_related and find_related_claims. Descriptions generally differentiate them well.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with methodist_ prefix for research workflow tools, though 'paginate' and 'methodist' (without underscore) are minor deviations.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is too many for a single server's scope, exceeding the 25+ threshold. The server combines two major workflows (literature search and research process guidance), which would be better split.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of operations: multiple search modes, document submission and versioning, topic exploration, evidence checking, methodology search, and research guidance. Minor gaps include lack of document deletion or metadata update without new version.