api-evangelist

find_related

Read-only

Given any doc (type + slug), the most related content across the whole network, ranked by shared-tag relevance (rare, specific tags weigh most). "More like this," across stories, areas, guidance, papers, conversations, and more.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`slug`	Yes	Slug of the item to find related content for, within `type`, e.g. "2026-09-29-you-cannot-see-your-own-api-from-the-outside".
`type`	Yes	Content type of the item `slug` names — the plural path name: posts, services, solutions, tools, areas, papers, videos, conversations, guidance…, e.g. "posts".
`limit`	No	Results per page, 1-100 (default 25).
`types`	No	Only return related items of these types, e.g. ["papers","posts"].
`context`	No	Optional: why you are asking. One sentence — the task you are trying to complete, or what you expect to get back. Never included in the answer and never used to rank; it is read only when a result turns out to be wrong, which is when knowing the intent is what makes the report actionable.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedOct 20, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / limit / description

Added value: +"Results per page, 1-100 (default 25)."

addedInput schema / properties / slug / description

Added value: +"Slug of the item to find related content for, within `type`, e.g. \"2026-09-29-you-cannot-see-your-own-api-from-the-outside\"."

addedInput schema / properties / type / description

Added value: +"Content type of the item `slug` names — the plural path name: posts, services, solutions, tools, areas, papers, videos, conversations, guidance…, e.g. \"posts\"."

addedInput schema / properties / types / description

Added value: +"Only return related items of these types, e.g. [\"papers\",\"posts\"]."

Changed1 schema field changedOct 19, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / context

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional: why you are asking. One sentence — the task you are trying to complete, or what you expect to get back. Never included in the answer and never used to rank; it is read only when a result turns out to be wrong, which is when knowing the intent is what makes the report actionable.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

AddedJul 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavior beyond that: results are ranked by shared-tag relevance with rare, specific tags weighted most, and the candidate pool is the whole network rather than a single type — useful for interpreting and trusting the ordering. It omits pagination/return-shape behavior, keeping it off a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the trigger and the result, with the ranking mechanism trailing. The quoted 'More like this,' flourish and the open-ended 'and more' add slight slack but cost little.

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?

Read-only tool with no output schema, but the description conveys what comes back (related content across types) and how it is ordered. Combined with the 100%-documented schema and annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only pagination/return-shape detail is unaddressed.

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%, including a substantive explanation of the context parameter's non-ranking role, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description restates the type + slug pairing and gestures at the breadth of acceptable types but adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific function (return the most related content for a given type + slug) plus the scope that separates it from the per-type find_* siblings: 'across the whole network' spanning stories, areas, guidance, papers and conversations. An agent can tell it is a cross-type recommendation tool rather than another type-specific lister without opening the schema.

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?

The trigger condition is clear — 'Given any doc (type + slug)' — and the 'More like this' framing makes the intended use obvious. It does not, however, name an alternative (e.g. find_posts for plain listing) or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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

All api-evangelist tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?