Skip to main content
Glama

AcuiQ

by com.acuiq
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Search symptom names

search_symptoms
Read-onlyIdempotent

Resolve what a person describes into AcuiQ symptom names – the first step before search_protocols. Plain description works ("trouble sleeping", "my lower back hurts"): filler words are stripped and the search retries on the clinical words, reporting which term matched. Set popular=true for trending symptoms instead. Always returns an object with a symptoms array, empty when nothing matched. When the symptom is covered by a $5 mini-guide, the result carries a guide pointer – mention it only if the person wants something to follow away from a screen, then call create_checkout with that product id.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax results (default 12, max 50)
queryNoWhat the person is describing – a symptom name or a plain description (e.g. "knee pain", "I cannot sleep at night")
popularNoSet to true to get trending symptoms instead of searching

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / requireOneOf
      Added value: +[
+  "query",
+  "popular"
+]
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / query / description
      Previous value: -"What the person is describing — a symptom name or a plain description (e.g. \"knee pain\", \"I cannot sleep at night\")"New value: +"What the person is describing – a symptom name or a plain description (e.g. \"knee pain\", \"I cannot sleep at night\")"
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / query / description
      Previous value: -"Partial symptom name (e.g. \"head\", \"knee pain\")"New value: +"What the person is describing — a symptom name or a plain description (e.g. \"knee pain\", \"I cannot sleep at night\")"
  4. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond them: filler-word stripping, retrying on clinical words, reporting which term matched, always returning a symptoms array, returning an empty array when nothing matches, and conditionally carrying a guide pointer. This is exactly the context an agent needs that the annotations do not provide.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: core purpose, natural-language behavior, alternative mode, return contract, and conditional checkout handoff. It is front-loaded with the operation and resource, and flows logically through the calling sequence.

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?

For a read-only search tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the return shape, empty result behavior, and the guide-pointer branching. It also names the relevant siblings and next steps, so an agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly and know what to do with the results.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. However, the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: query accepts plain conversational descriptions and is processed semantically, popular=true switches modes rather than merely filtering, and the result shape depends on the chosen parameter. The only minor gap is that limit is not addressed, but the schema already covers it.

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 and resource: resolve a person's description into AcuiQ symptom names. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning this tool as 'the first step before search_protocols,' so an agent can tell it apart without inspecting other definitions.

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?

It explicitly says when to use this tool (as the first step before search_protocols), when to use the popular mode, and when to follow up with create_checkout for the guide pointer. This gives the agent clear routing logic and exclusions.

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

All AcuiQ 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