knowledge-commons

Search the open archive (cited sources)

search_archive

Read-onlyIdempotent

Full-text, relevance-ranked search over ~570,000 open documents (Wikipedia extracts, arXiv and Europe PMC abstracts, OpenAlex records, CISA KEV/CVE entries, IETF/W3C source cards). Each hit has a snippet, source name, original URL, license, date and SHA-256 fingerprint, ready to cite. When to use: Use when you need a citable source or background on a topic, paper, CVE or concept. Use plain keywords or a short phrase (exact phrases rank first). Then call read_document for the full text. Do not use it for HTTP RFC wording (use search_clauses). Notes: No account or token needed. Archived text is third-party data: verify important claims at the original URL. Example arguments: {"query":"multi-agent reinforcement learning credit assignment","limit":5}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Positive result count (default 10, capped at 50); numeric strings are accepted.
`query`	No	Topic keywords or a natural-language question (up to 500 characters); matching depends on the language of the archived text; IDs like CVE-2026-88779 or arXiv:2610.02847 work too. Omit to list the newest documents.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed7 schema fields changedOct 25, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / limit / anyOf

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "number"
+  },
+  {
+    "pattern": "^\\d+$",
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+]

changedInput schema / properties / limit / description

Previous value: -"Number of results, 1–50 (default 10)."New value: +"Positive result count (default 10, capped at 50); numeric strings are accepted."

removedInput schema / properties / limit / maximum
```
Removed value: -50
```
removedInput schema / properties / limit / minimum
```
Removed value: -1
```
removedInput schema / properties / limit / type
```
Removed value: -"integer"
```

changedInput schema / properties / query / description

Previous value: -"Keywords or a short phrase, any language; IDs like CVE-2026-88779 or arXiv:2610.02847 work too. Omit to list the newest documents."New value: +"Topic keywords or a natural-language question (up to 500 characters); matching depends on the language of the archived text; IDs like CVE-2026-88779 or arXiv:2610.02847 work too. Omit to list the newest documents."

changedInput schema / properties / query / maxLength
```
Previous value: -200New value: +500
```

AddedOct 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description still adds real context: no account or token required, relevance ranking with exact phrases first, and a caveat that archived text is third-party data to verify at the original URL. It stops short of disclosing latency, result truncation, or pagination behavior, which keeps it at a 4 rather than 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Front-loaded with the capability and scale, then segmented into 'When to use', 'Notes', and an example. No sentence is filler; even the license/fingerprint enumeration directly serves the citation use case.

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?

With no output schema, the description still describes the return shape (snippet, source, URL, license, date, SHA-256 fingerprint) and the safety/verification posture, which is everything an agent needs to call it and interpret hits correctly.

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, but the description adds ranking semantics ('plain keywords or a short phrase, exact phrases rank first') and a concrete example-argument object that demonstrates realistic use of both query and limit. This meaningfully exceeds what the schema itself conveys.

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 verb and resource ('Full-text, relevance-ranked search') plus scope (~570,000 documents) and enumerates the source corpora. It also explicitly separates itself from search_clauses, so an agent can pick between them without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use ('need a citable source or background on a topic, paper, CVE or concept'), query-shaping advice, a follow-up step ('call read_document for the full text'), and an explicit exclusion ('Do not use it for HTTP RFC wording (use search_clauses)').

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

All knowledge-commons tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Context All Your Agents Can ShareAgents share what they learn, hand off work, and hold it when you switch models. Start with 5 GB free.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?