Skip to main content
Glama

den — Korean AEC knowledge, curated

by archi.den

path_between

두 개념이 어떻게 이어지는지 확인한다. "단열과 결로는 어떻게 연결되나", "전단벽에서 층간변위까지"처럼 출발·도착이 분명할 때 쓴다. 경로가 없으면 만들어 내지 말고 연결이 확인되지 않는다고 말한다.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
aYesStart concept name or phrase.
bYesEnd concept name or phrase.
scopeNoOptional comma scope filter such as climate=arid,epoch=ancient.
profileNo탐색 예산 프로파일. direct=2홉/3경로(드릴다운), standard=현행(기본), deep=6홉/12경로+교차축(쿼터 5배). 미지정 시 질의 인텐트 기반 기본값(대개 standard).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4/5.0
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 importantly states that if no path exists, the tool must not fabricate one and should report that the connection is unconfirmed. This is a meaningful behavioral trait beyond the schema, though it does not detail other aspects like read-only guarantees or error handling.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured: it states the core purpose first, gives concrete usage examples, and closes with an important behavioral constraint. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description is sufficient for the tool's moderate complexity, especially with 100% schema coverage and an output schema present. It covers purpose, usage condition, and a key behavioral rule. It does not add much about scope/profile semantics, but those are well documented in the schema.

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 100%, so the schema already documents a, b, scope, and profile. The description adds examples of a and b but does not compensate for or add beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: checking how two concepts connect, with concrete examples of start and destination phrases. It is a specific verb+resource description, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like traverse or enumerate.

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?

Gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool: when the start and destination are clearly defined, as in the provided examples. It does not mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All den — Korean AEC knowledge, curated 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools operate on the same underlying graph and can be confused: scenario and traverse both answer construction-order questions with overlapping examples, while answer_why, path_between, and evidence_for all deal with causal/conceptual connections. The descriptions are detailed and try to fence off compare, enumerate, and scenario, but the process/path cluster still has unclear boundaries.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names are readable and consistently lowercase snake_case, but the grammatical pattern varies widely: verb-only (compare, traverse), noun-only (scenario, feedback), verb_noun (review_plan), and compound noun/preposition forms (evidence_for, site_context, answer_why). It is mixed but not chaotic, so an agent can still infer each tool's role from its name.

Tool Count4/5

Twelve tools is a reasonable size for a broad curated AEC knowledge server and fits the ideal 3-15 range. The count is slightly inflated by overlapping process/path tools (scenario/traverse) and niche additions (emotional_palette, feedback), but it is not excessive.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers a wide range of reasoning types: causal explanation, comparison, classification, code retrieval, plan review, path traversal, sequence construction, site context, and evidence verification. The main gap is the lack of a direct generic 'what is X / define a concept' tool, which may require chaining multiple tools to get a simple definition.

Resources