Skip to main content
Glama

find_related_claims

Association search over published claims: what else does the graph already know that bears on THIS claim. Searched by the claim's OWN stored vector, so it is like-for-like and costs no embedding call — this is the by-EXAMPLE sibling of methodist_search_semantic, which searches by free TEXT. Use it before creating a claim (is this already established?), when building on prior work, and at cycle closeouts where the methodology already requires citing rather than re-minting. FIELDS: score_gemini / score_qwen are per-space scores, and when a space is queried EVERY hit gets its score (a hit missing from that space's own top-K is scored directly, so a blank is never a hidden low score). similarity_agreement="both_spaces" means two INDEPENDENT vector spaces agree the two claims are SIMILAR; "single_space" means both were queried and only one cleared the floor — a real disagreement; ★ "not_measured" means only one space was queried (the default), so agreement was NEVER TESTED — read it as the absence of a question, never as a negative answer. Pass vector="both" to actually test agreement. None of this says whether the found claim is TRUE; its verification status is the separate verification_outcome field. ownership="own" | "foreign" | "unknown": self-corroboration is weaker evidence, and "unknown" (provenance not establishable) counts as NEITHER — it earns no independence credit and no right to supersede, and you must record in your journal that the origin could not be established. SAME_AS: when a cluster is collapsed the returned representative is the BEST-MATCHING member, NOT the §7.6 identity-canonical (which is the earliest and is returned alongside as same_as_canonical_id). LINKING: cite/link link_target_id, not the hit id — it is the canonical mapped to its current version. When link_target_followed_chain is true the target was superseded-forward and its CONTENT may differ from the hit that matched. If link_target_ambiguous is true, TWO OR MORE records supersede the same one — there is no single current version; read link_target_candidates and choose deliberately rather than citing either as the answer. you matched: read it before linking. Read-only: never merges, never proposes a merge, never writes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
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.
vectorNosearch space — default gemini (primary); qwen = the alt space; both = fused (NOT the default)
claim_idYes
min_scoreNoraise the similarity floor above the codified 0.62; it can only be raised, never lowered
latest_onlyNoexclude superseded claims (DEFAULT OFF since A0-3b, aligned with methodist_find / _search / _search_semantic). Every returned claim carries is_superseded, so filtering here is optional: you can always drop stamped records, but you cannot recover records a door hid from you.
exclude_same_asNodrop members of the ANCHOR's own same_as cluster — they are the same claim (default TRUE). The response reports how many were dropped in excluded.same_as_members.
collapse_same_asNorepresent each same_as cluster once, by its best match (default TRUE)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / exclude_same_as / description
      Previous value: -"drop members of the ANCHOR's own same_as cluster — they are the same claim (default TRUE)"New value: +"drop members of the ANCHOR's own same_as cluster — they are the same claim (default TRUE). The response reports how many were dropped in excluded.same_as_members."
    • changedInput schema / properties / latest_only / description
      Previous value: -"exclude superseded claims (default TRUE)"New value: +"exclude superseded claims (DEFAULT OFF since A0-3b, aligned with methodist_find / _search / _search_semantic). Every returned claim carries is_superseded, so filtering here is optional: you can always drop stamped records, but you cannot recover records a door hid from you."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It clearly states the tool is read-only, never merges or writes, explains the meaning of ownership, verification status, same_as collapsing, and link-target following, and cautions about ambiguous links. This is excellent behavioral disclosure.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is excessively long and repetitive, with dense run-on explanations and apparent typos (e.g., 'by-EXAMPLE sibling'). Important details are buried in a wall of text, making it harder to parse quickly. It would benefit from tighter organization and pruning.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the semantics of the returned fields: per-space scores, similarity agreement, ownership, same_as canonical selection, linking behavior, and the separate verification_outcome field. This gives an agent enough context to correctly interpret results and avoid misuse.

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 75%, so the baseline is 3. The prose adds useful context for vector='both' and min_score semantics, but it does not describe limit or claim_id, which are missing from the schema. Overall it adds only modest value beyond the existing parameter descriptions.

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 identifies the tool as an association search over published claims and distinguishes it from semantic text search by noting this searches by the claim's own stored vector. It also gives concrete use cases (before creating a claim, building on prior work, cycle closeouts), making the purpose and differentiation explicit.

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 provides explicit when-to-use scenarios and contrasts with methodist_search_semantic (free text vs. stored vector). It does not explicitly position itself against all sibling tools such as find_related or methodist_find, but the guidance is strong and actionable.

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.