Skip to main content
Glama

Server Details

Find ~5 thinkers whose intellectual fingerprint matches a passage of text.

Status
Healthy
Last Tested
Transport
Streamable HTTP
URL

Glama MCP Gateway

Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.

MCP client
Glama
MCP server

Full call logging

Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.

Tool access control

Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.

Managed credentials

Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.

Usage analytics

See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.

100% free. Your data is private.
Tool DescriptionsA

Average 4.9/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5

With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion or overlap between tools. The tool's purpose is singular and well-defined.

Naming Consistency5/5

Single tool name 'find_thinkers_like' follows a clear verb_noun pattern. There are no other tools to cause inconsistency.

Tool Count3/5

One tool is borderline thin for a server, but the tool itself is substantive and covers a specific, valuable function. It earns its place but leaves room for potential expansion (e.g., listing or exploring thinkers).

Completeness4/5

The tool fully addresses the intended purpose of finding thinkers similar to a passage. Minor gaps exist, such as lacking capabilities to browse or filter results, but the core workflow is complete.

Available Tools

1 tool
find_thinkers_likeFind thinkers like thisAInspect

Given a passage of text (essay, note, message, snippet, transcript), returns ~5 humans whose intellectual fingerprint matches it — recurring themes, mental models, archetypal stance, blind spots. Use when the principal asks for sparring partners, intellectual peers, "who else is wrestling with this," "who thinks like X," or "find me writers similar to this passage." Each result returns a name, three-word archetype, one-line summary, dominant themes, and a profile URL the principal can visit. The match runs over Voyage 3.5-lite text embeddings reranked by a proprietary 12-dimensional cognitive-style vector — so results align by how a mind reasons, not just topical overlap.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYes

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
rerankYes
matchesYes
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that results include name, three-word archetype, one-line summary, dominant themes, and profile URL. It also explains the matching runs over Voyage 3.5-lite embeddings reranked by a proprietary 12-dimensional cognitive-style vector, clarifying how results align by cognitive style rather than topical overlap.

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?

Description is well-structured and front-loaded with purpose and use cases. Every sentence adds essential information: purpose, usage, output format, and technique. No wasted words.

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 (cognitive-style matching) and presence of an output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns and how it works. It covers input, output format, and the matching methodology, making it complete for an agent.

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?

Only one parameter ('text') with constraints minLength 80 and maxLength 8000 in schema, but description does not mention these limits. However, description adds semantic value by explaining the text is used to find intellectual matches. Since schema coverage is 0%, description partially compensates but could include the length requirement.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: given a passage of text, return ~5 humans with matching intellectual fingerprint. It specifies input (passage), output (~5 humans with details), and the underlying mechanism (Voyage embeddings + cognitive-style vector). This is specific and unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly provides use cases: 'when the principal asks for sparring partners, intellectual peers, "who else is wrestling with this," "who thinks like X," or "find me writers similar to this passage."' This gives clear guidance on when to invoke the tool.

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

Discussions

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!

Try in Browser

Your Connectors

Sign in to create a connector for this server.

Resources