Skip to main content
Glama

search_vault

Semantic and keyword search across stored personal records, facts, and memories in the private vault.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_vault"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesThe search query to match against stored memories, project decisions, or preferences.
top_kNoNumber of results to return (1-20, default 5).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only retrieval and mentions the vault is private, but says nothing about permissions needed, how results are ranked or scored, whether results are scoped to the caller's own vault, or what the response looks like — significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The purpose and scope are stated immediately, which is the right structure for a simple search tool.

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?

For a low-complexity tool with two fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basics of what is searched and where. It is nonetheless incomplete regarding result format, ranking behavior, and its relationship to the overlapping sibling search_memory_vault.

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%, so both parameters are already fully documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description adds mild value by broadening the notion of what the query matches ('personal records, facts, and memories') but gives no extra detail on top_k behavior or result semantics beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource — search across stored personal records, facts, and memories — and specifies that both semantic and keyword matching are used. It does not, however, distinguish this from the near-identical sibling 'search_memory_vault', leaving the agent to guess which vault search to call.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings such as search_memory_vault, query_graph, or get_neural_cluster, nor any stated exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name and the word 'vault'.

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.