Skip to main content
Glama

OpenArx

by ai.openarx

methodist_explore_topic

Explore a topic ACROSS PUBLISHED CLAIMS in the layer-2 knowledge graph (keyword match on claim text). Searches CLAIMS, not papers — for the conceptual landscape of the PAPER corpus use explore_topic, which clusters chunks of documents instead. Scientific-only; a lightweight entry into the graph — pair with methodist_find to walk relations from a hit.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
topicYes
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.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It reveals that it does keyword match on claim text, searches claims not papers, and is scientific-only. However, it does not disclose behavioral traits like result format, pagination, or rate limits. The description adds some context but is not rich.

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, front-loaded with key purpose, no wasted words. Every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness3/5

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

No output schema is provided, so the description should explain what the agent receives. It mentions pairing with methodist_find but does not describe the return shape. For a graph exploration tool, this is a gap, but the description is adequate for deciding to use it.

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 description coverage is 33% (only run_id has a description). The description compensates for run_id with detailed attribution context, but does not add semantics for 'topic' or 'limit' beyond their types and constraints in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds partial value.

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 the tool explores a topic across published claims in the layer-2 knowledge graph using keyword match, and distinguishes from the sibling 'explore_topic' which operates on papers. The verb 'explore' and resource 'claims' are specific.

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 gives explicit context: when to use this tool (scientific-only, lightweight entry into the graph) and an alternative ('for the conceptual landscape of the PAPER corpus use explore_topic'). It also mentions pairing with methodist_find. However, it does not explicitly state 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.

All OpenArx toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

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.

Resources