Search notes, guides, and/or pillars by title/summary. type optional: notes|guides|pillars|all. Educational only. Not financial advice. Not an FSP/CASP. DYOR. Listings and tools are not buy, sell, custody, or swap recommendations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | ||
| type | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description is the only source of behavioral context. It adds educational/disclaimer context and clearly frames the operation as search, implying read-only behavior, but it does not describe result format, pagination, or matching semantics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The core behavior and type options are front-loaded in two short sentences, with legal disclaimers appended. It is concise, though the disclaimer block is not directly action-oriented.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter search tool, the description gives the essential purpose and the optional type filter. It lacks details on return values, search matching behavior, and relationship to the sibling search/list tools, and no output schema exists to fill this gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description partly compensates by explaining 'type' with its enum values and indicating title/summary as the search target. However, 'q' is never explicitly named or detailed, leaving required-parameter semantics vague.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it searches notes, guides, and/or pillars by title/summary, giving a specific verb, resource set, and search field. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like search_directory or list_notes, so it misses the full 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies its use by naming the query-driven search and the optional type filter, and it explains the type enum. It does not state when to prefer it over sibling list_* or search_directory tools, nor any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
list_directory and search_directory accept nearly identical filters (q, category, tag), so their boundaries blur. The get_/list_/search_ split is otherwise clear, and the meta endpoints (disclaimer, site_posture, llms_map) are distinct though thematically related.
All tool names consistently follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern using only get_, list_, and search_. There are no mixed conventions, vague verbs, or unpredictable naming.
Twelve tools is within a reasonable range for a read-only educational content server. However, the overlap between list_directory and search_directory suggests the surface could be slightly trimmed without losing core functionality.
The server covers directory browsing, educational content listing and searching, metrics, and site-positioning meta endpoints well. Missing per-item getters for guides and notes is a minor gap since lists include URLs and search covers those types; write operations are not expected for an educational-only server.