Skip to main content
Glama

similar_channels

Channels in the shared index closest to this one by the meaning of their titles, else by shared words, with a similarity 0 to 1. Free. Same as GET /v1/channels/{ref}/similar.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "ref": "<ref>"
    },
    "name": "similar_channels"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
refYes
limitNo
api_keyNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the fallback ranking logic (title meaning, else shared words), the 0-1 similarity range, and that the operation is free, but it omits whether authentication is required and does not state the operation's read-only nature.

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?

The description is compact and front-loads the core behavior, with short supporting notes about cost and the equivalent endpoint. It is efficient, though the fragment style and lack of a leading verb make it slightly less polished.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations and zero schema description coverage, the description leaves important gaps around parameter meaning, authentication, and when to choose this over sibling tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It only vaguely implies that 'this one' refers to the required ref channel, while the limit and api_key parameters receive no explanation at all.

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 that the tool returns channels closest to a given channel, with ranking by title meaning or shared words and a similarity score from 0 to 1. It is specific about the resource and ranking behavior, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from siblings such as search_channels or get_channel.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the use case (finding similar channels) but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to alternatives like search_channels or get_channel. The endpoint mapping and 'Free' note add context but do not guide tool selection.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources