Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

intel

by io.chainhelix
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

lexicon_bulk

Read-only

Up to 25 argument names resolved against the ChainHelix Agentic Lexicon in one call: for each name the entry (id, meaning, representation, unit, example) or, when the name is unknown or ambiguous, the candidates. Each item is a name, or { name, namespace, venue } with the same hints as lexicon_resolve. Price: 50 cents per call. A ChainHelix API key does not cover this tool.

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": {
      "names": "<names>"
    },
    "name": "lexicon_bulk"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
namesYesup to 25 names, each a string or { name, namespace?, venue? }

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countNo
errorNo
resultsNo
resolvedNo
bundleSha256No
lexiconVersionNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / x-lexicon / bundleSha256
      Previous value: -"670f7504e3de5031beccee25a2d24e4515f68b893295f6d5b0d3a0665498b2c9"New value: +"25cc80db6d8e9eac73d47a50f7ad6333a21f1972d008a8fed0159de8bfb4b519"
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / x-lexicon / bundleSha256
      Previous value: -"e5b4290024a229f2bdf97f8fc6a0079c3fe13b77267f41fdcffeb8b26aa1c41e"New value: +"670f7504e3de5031beccee25a2d24e4515f68b893295f6d5b0d3a0665498b2c9"
    • changedInput schema / x-lexicon / version
      Previous value: -"0.1.0"New value: +"0.2.0"
  3. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • removedOutput schema / properties / receipt
      Removed value: -{
-  "additionalProperties": false,
-  "properties": {
-    "bytes": {
-      "type": "number"
-    },
-    "covers": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "issuedAt": {
-      "type": "number"
-    },
-    "lookup": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "network": {
-      "type": [
-        "string",
-        "null"
-      ]
-    },
-    "nonce": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "seq": {
-      "type": "number"
-    },
-    "settleTx": {
-      "type": [
-        "string",
-        "null"
-      ]
-    },
-    "sha256": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "tool": {
-      "type": [
-        "string",
-        "null"
-      ]
-    }
-  },
-  "type": "object"
-}
  4. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / x-lexicon / bundleSha256
      Previous value: -"a1c2e10fd3177d6b4d59ca78693e8fb36880165cf0f735f680dd86a510411178"New value: +"e5b4290024a229f2bdf97f8fc6a0079c3fe13b77267f41fdcffeb8b26aa1c41e"
  5. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / x-lexicon / bundleSha256
      Previous value: -"1eeb782ee15fe69fc80776948e0556fa6b795e210e6305935b2c97b73d955cda"New value: +"a1c2e10fd3177d6b4d59ca78693e8fb36880165cf0f735f680dd86a510411178"
  6. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true), yet the description adds material context: pricing at 50 cents per call, the fact that an API key does not cover it, and what each result contains (entry fields or candidate lists). That is genuine behavioral value beyond the structured fields.

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 dense sentences with no filler, front-loading the batch resolution purpose and following with result shape, then pricing. Slightly compressed phrasing but every clause carries information.

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?

Return values are already covered by an output schema, and the description additionally explains entries vs. candidates plus the pricing/auth caveat. Given only one simple parameter, this is nearly complete; the only omission is explicit routing guidance against lexicon_resolve.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented in the schema, so the schema carries the load. The description restates the item shape (string or name/namespace/venue) without adding format or validation detail beyond the schema, making baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

Specific verb (resolved) plus resource (ChainHelix Agentic Lexicon) plus explicit batching scope ('up to 25 argument names ... in one call'). It also distinguishes itself from lexicon_resolve by referencing the same item hints, so an agent can tell the batch variant apart from the single-name sibling.

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 batch cap of 25 and the per-item shape establish clear usage context, and linking the item format to lexicon_resolve implies the relationship to that sibling. It stops short of explicitly saying 'use lexicon_resolve for a single name' or stating when not to use this tool, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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

All intel 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