FindAgent

findagent_attach_kb

Attach a knowledge base you own to an agent or department you own, to an organization you administer (org KB — auto-available to every agent/department run for the org’s active members), or bind it as your personal KB. Identify an agent/department target by target_slug (recommended) or target_id from findagent_list_my_agents; identify an org target by its slug/id from findagent_list_orgs (you must be an org owner or admin). Choose mode: tool (the agent gets a search_knowledge tool), auto_inject (relevant passages are prepended before the call), or both. This is NOT part of the agent manifest, so updating the KB needs no agent re-publish.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`mode`	No	How the KB is used. Default tool.
`kb_id`	Yes	The knowledge base id (from findagent_list_kbs).
`target_id`	No	The agent/department id you own (findagent_list_my_agents) or the org id you administer (findagent_list_orgs). Alternative to target_slug. Omit for user_personal.
`target_kind`	Yes	What to attach it to.
`target_slug`	No	The agent/department slug you own (findagent_list_my_agents) or the org slug you administer (findagent_list_orgs). Recommended over target_id. Omit for user_personal.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`attachment`	No
`instructions`	No

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false; the description adds substantial behavioral context: how each mode behaves, that org KBs are auto-available, and that attaching is not part of the agent manifest so re-publishing is unnecessary. This meaningfully clarifies side effects beyond the 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 compact and well-structured: primary action first, then target identification, then mode choices, then an important caveat. Every sentence contributes needed decision-making information, with no filler or 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's complexity (multiple target kinds, ownership rules, three modes, and an output schema), the description covers the key operational aspects: prerequisites, target lookup, mode effects, and manifest behavior. The output schema handles return values, so nothing critical is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds useful semantics by explaining mode meaning ('tool', 'auto_inject', 'both'), recommending target_slug over target_id, and clarifying target source tools. This goes beyond the schema's terse parameter comments without repeating them unnecessarily.

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 ('Attach') and resource ('a knowledge base'), and enumerates the possible targets (agent, department, org, personal). It also declares ownership/admin prerequisites, which distinguishes it clearly from related siblings like findagent_detach_kb, findagent_create_knowledge_base, and findagent_list_kb_attachments.

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 context for when to use the tool, including how to identify targets via findagent_list_my_agents or findagent_list_orgs and the ownership requirements. It does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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

All FindAgent tools Inspect

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

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a clearly scoped resource+action combination, and the versioning variants (bump_version vs repull vs reintrospect_mcp) are explicitly disambiguated by agent kind. Even with 52 tools, the descriptions make each purpose distinct enough to avoid misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

Nearly all tools follow the findagent_<verb>_<object> snake_case pattern, and families share predictable verbs like list, create, delete, edit, and submit. Minor exceptions such as findagent_preflight, findagent_whoami, and findagent_earnings keep it from perfect consistency.

Tool Count2/5

At 52 tools, this far exceeds the 25-tool threshold for a coherent MCP surface. The count may reflect a broad platform, but as a single toolset it is heavy and likely to strain agent selection and context.

Completeness3/5

The surface covers publishing, versioning, knowledge bases, org management, GitHub import, purchases, and the demand board in impressive depth. However, there are notable dead ends: no unpublish/delete for a live agent, no request-fulfillment/linking action, and no org deletion or KB document update.

Resources

Need Help?