Skip to main content
Glama

PersonalKnowHow

Query know-how

query_knowhow
Read-only

Search this person's real, grounded skills/experience graph for a topic using semantic search. Returns only entries with real evidence -- never guesses. Every entry here represents something actually done or completed (project, certification, position, course, or education) -- this public dataset never includes saved-but-not-worked jobs or applications. This is SEMANTIC search ranked by relevance and capped at 10 results -- it is NOT exhaustive. For 'list every X' or 'how many X' questions, use list_by_type instead -- it returns the complete, uncapped set with no similarity ranking involved. Clearing the similarity floor means 'closest available match', not 'confirmed match' -- read each result's actual label/description/type before citing it as evidence for the specific topic queried. Each result also carries source_url/captured_at/provider (the real evidence behind it, when available) and source_note (explaining why not, when the underlying source has no link) -- use these to answer a disputed claim with actual backing evidence rather than just the description text. Embeddings can rank a topically-adjacent-but-wrong entry above the floor (e.g. a course on a different cloud data-warehouse tool, or a different framework in the same category) for a term it isn't actually about; if a result isn't genuinely on topic, treat the query as unmatched rather than reporting it as a match. For 'what else is connected to this' or 'what shares a skill/provider with this specific entry' questions, call related_entries with a result's id instead of re-querying by topic.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topicYesA skill, technology, or topic to check, e.g. 'django' or 'aws'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds substantial behavior: semantic ranking, a 10-result cap, non-exhaustive results, evidence-only dataset content, source fields, and the risk of topically-adjacent wrong matches. This goes well beyond what annotations provide and contains no contradiction.

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 long but purpose-first: it front-loads the core action, then gives boundaries, evidence handling, and failure modes. Each sentence earns its place, though there is slight redundancy around 'real evidence' and the caveats could be tightened without losing value.

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 covers result caps, result fields (source_url/captured_at/provider/source_note), false-positive behavior, and alternative tool routing. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret results safely.

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?

The schema already documents the single topic parameter with examples, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying that topic matching is semantic rather than literal, ranked by relevance, and may return adjacent-but-wrong entries — important context for interpreting results.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Search ... using semantic search') and names the exact resource ('person's real, grounded skills/experience graph'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by stating it is capped at 10 results and only returns evidence-backed entries.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when NOT to use this tool: for exhaustive 'list every X'/'how many X' questions, use list_by_type; for relationship questions, use related_entries. It also instructs treating off-topic semantic matches as unmatched, providing clear decision rules for ambiguous results.

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.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a clearly distinct retrieval mode: exhaustive listing by type, semantic ranked search, relationship traversal by ID, and exact tag matching. The descriptions actively cross-reference each other to prevent confusion, making misselection very unlikely.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case and readable, but the pattern is mixed: list_by_type and query_knowhow are imperative verb phrases, while related_entries and skill_evidence are noun phrases. A more consistent set would use verbs throughout, such as get_related_entries and get_skill_evidence.

Tool Count5/5

Four tools is well-scoped for a read-only personal knowledge graph. Each tool covers a necessary and non-redundant query path, and none feel like filler or missing from the core set.

Completeness4/5

The set covers the main query needs: exhaustive lookup by type, semantic search, related entries, and exact skill evidence. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct get-entry-by-id tool and no way to enumerate all available types or tags without first running a search, but these are workable.