Skip to main content
Glama

Catalunya 2022

by cat.2022

Search the document

search_document
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search the Catalunya 2022 - RESET policy document by keyword. Returns up to 10 results with canonical slugs (for follow-up with get_section) and text snippets; "total" carries the full match count. Terms are matched independently with coverage-based ranking; quoted phrases ("energia sostenible") must match exactly. Handles Catalan/Spanish diacritics automatically (e.g., 'educacio' matches 'educació').

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesSearch query (e.g., 'housing', 'educacio', 'digital transformation'). Use terms in the target locale for best results.
scopeNoFilter by section type: 'action' (91 proposals), 'goal' (12 overviews), 'sphere' (3 overviews), or 'static' (introduction, executive summary, train of prosperity)
localeNoContent language. Defaults to 'ca' (Catalan), the original language of the document. (ca=Catalan, en=English, es=Spanish)ca

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
totalYesTotal matches before the 10-result cap
messageNoGuidance when no results were found
resultsYes

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint as false, so the description correctly aligns with a safe, read-only search. Beyond annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral details: returns up to 10 results, independent term matching with coverage-based ranking, exact phrase matching for quotes, and automatic diacritic handling. This adds significant depth beyond annotations.

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 two well-structured sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and each sentence adds critical information without redundancy.

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 the tool has an output schema (not shown to us but present) and detailed annotations, the description covers all needed aspects: search behavior, limits, follow-up integration, language nuances, and scope definitions. No gaps are apparent.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond schema: it clarifies the scope values (e.g., '90 proposals' for 'action') and provides usage tips for locale (original language is Catalan). The description also explains the query behavior (independent term matching, phrase quotes) which is not in the schema. This adds enough value to bring the score to 4.

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 ('search'), resource ('Catalunya 2022 - RESET policy document'), and method ('by keyword'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by mentioning follow-up with 'get_section' and return of 'canonical slugs', which is unique among the listed siblings.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool (to search the document by keyword) and what to use for follow-up ('get_section' is named). It also provides guidance on how to use it effectively, including tips about quoted phrases for exact matches and diacritic handling. It does not mention alternatives like 'list_proposals' but clearly positions this for searching rather than listing all content.

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

All Catalunya 2022 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

A4.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct purpose: metadata retrieval, section text retrieval, listing proposals, and searching. There is no overlap; get_document_metadata and get_section serve complementary roles, and list_proposals and search_document provide alternative discovery methods.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names consistently use the verb_noun pattern (get_document_metadata, get_section, list_proposals, search_document). The pattern is uniform and predictable across all four tools.

Tool Count5/5

With 4 tools, the set is concise yet complete for navigating a hierarchical policy document. Each tool earns its place by covering distinct operations (browse metadata, read sections, list proposals, search), avoiding bloat while providing essential functionality.

Completeness5/5

The tool set fully covers the needed operations for this single-document server: discover structure (get_document_metadata), read content (get_section), browse proposals (list_proposals), and search (search_document). No obvious gaps exist for the stated domain of accessing the Catalunya 2022 policy document.

Resources