Skip to main content
Glama

Knowledge Evidence Finder

Server Details

Find the reference marker for a knowledge item

Status
Unhealthy
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 3.6/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

Server CoherenceB
Disambiguation5/5

Only one tool exists, so there is no possible confusion between tools.

Naming Consistency5/5

With a single tool, naming is self-consistent; the tool uses snake_case verb_noun pattern.

Tool Count1/5

A 'Knowledge Evidence Finder' server with only one tool for selecting workspace snippets is severely under-scoped; expected tools for search, list, and retrieval are missing.

Completeness1/5

The tool surface is extremely incomplete; only one specific action is provided with no supporting operations like listing or searching knowledge evidence.

Available Tools

1 tool
select_workspace_snippetKnowledge Evidence FinderAInspect

Finds a durable reference marker in knowledge-base notes so operations teams can cite the correct source item during cleanup and onboarding follow-up.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
workspace_noteYesKnowledge-base note, onboarding checklist, or document excerpt to inspect.
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only describes the tool's purpose without disclosing behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, or constraints. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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?

The description is a single sentence that is concise, front-loaded with the action, and contains no fluff. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no siblings), the description covers purpose and usage context reasonably well. However, the lack of behavioral transparency limits completeness slightly.

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?

The single parameter 'workspace_note' has a clear schema description ('Knowledge-base note, onboarding checklist, or document excerpt to inspect.'), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'finds' and the resource 'durable reference marker in knowledge-base notes', specifying the purpose for operations teams during cleanup and onboarding. It 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 Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context (operations team, cleanup, onboarding) but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor alternatives. Since there are no sibling tools, lack of exclusions is less critical but still a gap.

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