Skip to main content
Glama

OpenArx

by ai.openarx
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

methodist_search_semantic

Semantic (embedding) search over methodist-published claims — the nearest claims to a natural-language query. scope="scientific" (default) searches the §7 claim space (engineering edges excluded from the projection). scope="engineering" is reuse-discovery: it searches the engineering-projected vector, scoped to engineering-connected claims — find past engineering approaches similar to a requirement (a text-similar non-engineering claim never leaks in). Returns claim ids + similarity scores + a text snippet.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
queryYes
scopeNoscientific (default, §7 claim space) or engineering (reuse-discovery over engineering approaches)
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.
latest_onlyNoreturn only current (non-superseded) claims (default off)
claim_statusNooptional filter on the exact claim_status value
claim_status_setNooptional filter by KIND of statement instead of by exact value: sourced (what a source asserts) | derived (your own inference) | action (your own decision or commitment) | open (a question or a gap) | proposed (a hypothesis or forecast put up to be tested). Expands to that set's values, so you never enumerate them by hand. Ignored if claim_status is also given — the exact value is more specific.
collapse_same_asNocollapse same_as-equivalent hits to ONE representative — the BEST-MATCHING member (a ranked face, NOT the §7.6 identity-canonical). Returns same_as_members[] + same_as_canonical_id (the earliest, i.e. the identity-canonical). Default off.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / claim_status_set / description
      Previous value: -"optional filter by KIND of statement instead of by exact value: sourced (what a source asserts) | derived (your own inference) | action (your own decision or commitment) | open (a question or a gap). Expands to that set's values, so you never enumerate them by hand. Ignored if claim_status is also given — the exact value is more specific."New value: +"optional filter by KIND of statement instead of by exact value: sourced (what a source asserts) | derived (your own inference) | action (your own decision or commitment) | open (a question or a gap) | proposed (a hypothesis or forecast put up to be tested). Expands to that set's values, so you never enumerate them by hand. Ignored if claim_status is also given — the exact value is more specific."
    • changedInput schema / properties / claim_status_set / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "sourced",
-  "derived",
-  "action",
-  "open"
-]New value: +[
+  "sourced",
+  "derived",
+  "action",
+  "open",
+  "proposed"
+]
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / claim_status / description
      Previous value: -"optional filter on the claim_status payload field"New value: +"optional filter on the exact claim_status value"
    • addedInput schema / properties / claim_status_set
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "optional filter by KIND of statement instead of by exact value: sourced (what a source asserts) | derived (your own inference) | action (your own decision or commitment) | open (a question or a gap). Expands to that set's values, so you never enumerate them by hand. Ignored if claim_status is also given — the exact value is more specific.",
+  "enum": [
+    "sourced",
+    "derived",
+    "action",
+    "open"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the return structure (ids + scores + snippet), explains the engineering-scope guarantee (no text-similar non-engineering claims leak), and discloses the run_id attribution requirement for §8 usage crosscheck—a non-obvious behavioral detail. It does not mention side effects, but as a read-only search this is acceptable. It adds context beyond the schema.

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 well-organized: it starts with the primary purpose, then explains each scope in turn, and ends with the return format. It is slightly verbose (five sentences) but each sentence contributes information. The run_id and claim_status_set explanations are necessary given their complexity. No fluff, but it could be tightened by merging scope explanations.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain the return format—it does ('Returns claim ids + similarity scores + a text snippet'). It also covers the nuanced engineering-scope behavior and the run_id attribution requirement. It does not mention pagination, but limit is in the schema. For a search tool with this many parameters, it is fairly complete; the only gap is not noting that it is strictly read-only, though that is implied.

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 most parameters are already documented. The description adds depth to 'scope' by explaining what each value does in practice (engineering is reuse-discovery, scientific is default), and elaborates on run_id's purpose (attribution stability across token refreshes). However, it does not add meaning for limit, latest_only, claim_status, or claim_status_set beyond the schema. The added value is marginal but present.

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 states a specific verb ('semantic search'), a precise resource ('methodist-published claims'), and clearly distinguishes the two scopes (scientific vs engineering) with their distinct purposes. It tells the agent what the tool does and how it differs from generic search by specifying the claim-space projection. The return format is also mentioned, removing ambiguity.

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?

It gives clear guidance on when to use the scientific scope (default, §7 claims) vs the engineering scope (reuse-discovery), including a behavioral guarantee that non-engineering claims never leak in. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with siblings like search_semantic or methodist_search, nor state when not to use it. The scope guidance is strong, but tool-selection guidance is incomplete.

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
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources