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 When link_target_followed_chain is true the target was superseded-forward and its CONTENT may differ from the hit that matched.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 TRUE)
exclude_same_asNodrop members of the ANCHOR's own same_as cluster — they are the same claim (default TRUE)
collapse_same_asNorepresent each same_as cluster once, by its best match (default TRUE)

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses detailed behavioral traits: scoring field meanings, similarity agreement semantics, ownership handling, same-as cluster behavior, and linking instructions. This fully compensates for the lack of annotations.

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?

The description is long but well-structured with clear sections and bullet-like formatting. It front-loads the purpose and each sentence contributes necessary detail for a complex tool.

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?

Given 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description thoroughly explains all relevant aspects, including result fields, edge cases, and usage constraints. It is complete for an agent to effectively invoke and understand the tool.

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?

Adds meaning beyond the input schema for parameters like vector, min_score, and run_id. However, parameters limit and claim_id are not elaborated, and 75% schema coverage already provides baseline meaning.

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 it is an 'Association search over published claims' that finds related claims by example, using the claim's own stored vector. It distinguishes itself from the sibling methodist_search_semantic, which searches by free text.

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 specifies when to use: before creating a claim, when building on prior work, and at cycle closeouts. Also states it is read-only, never merging or writing, guiding against using it for mutations.

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.