Skip to main content
Glama

Scrutica

by io.github.davidgringras

scrutica_search

Read-only

Search facilities, companies, or sovereign programs by free-text query. Returns ranked results with id, name, type, one-line summary, and Scrutica URL. Filter by entity_type to scope to a single class. Filter by ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code. Do NOT use this for BIS Entity List / export-control lookups — use scrutica_query_export_controls. Do NOT use this for supply-chain traversal — resolve an entity ID first via this tool, then call scrutica_get_supply_chain.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
queryYesFree-text search query
countryNoISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code (e.g. US, CN, TW)
entity_typeNoLimit results to this entity classall

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds context about search scope (facilities/companies/sovereign programs), return format (ranked results with id/name/type/summary/URL), and explicit exclusions, which go beyond the annotation but don't cover rate limits or pagination.

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?

Four sentences, all substantive: purpose, return type, filters, and exclusions. Front-loaded with the main action, no filler.

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?

For a search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return fields, filters, and exclusions well. It lacks pagination/limit behavior details, but the schema covers limits, and the exclusions make it quite complete for selection.

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 covers 75% of parameters with descriptions (query, country, entity_type). The description reinforces the filtering semantics ('Filter by entity_type', 'Filter by ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code') but adds no new details beyond schema, and limit remains undocumented in both.

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?

Description clearly states 'Search facilities, companies, or sovereign programs by free-text query' with a specific verb and resource scope. It also lists return fields and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like scrutica_get_company and scrutica_query_export_controls.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use context ('by free-text query') and clear when-not-to-use with named alternatives: 'Do NOT use this for BIS Entity List / export-control lookups — use scrutica_query_export_controls' and 'Do NOT use this for supply-chain traversal — resolve an entity ID first via this tool, then call scrutica_get_supply_chain'.

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

All Scrutica toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a clearly distinct resource or action: canonical entity/facility/program lookups, free-text search, supply-chain traversal, BIS query versus BIS change-log, FLOP estimation, and methodology docs. Cross-references explicitly redirect likely-confused intents, such as using scrutica_query_export_controls for entity designations and scrutica_entity_list_changes for changes, so misselection is unlikely.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming is mostly consistent: scrutica_get_* for canonical lookups, plus clear action-style names like scrutica_search, scrutica_query_export_controls, and scrutica_estimate_flops. The main deviation is scrutica_entity_list_changes, which reads as a noun phrase rather than a verb-first tool name, so the pattern is coherent but not perfectly uniform.

Tool Count5/5

Ten tools is well calibrated for this server's broad but focused domain coverage. Each meaningful data area gets one or two dedicated tools—companies, facilities, sovereign programs, supply chain, export controls, scenarios, methodology, and FLOP estimation—with no count-inflating duplicates.

Completeness4/5

The read-side surface is largely complete: search, get-by-ID, change-tracking, relationship traversal, scenario retrieval, and methodology lookup all exist. The main gap is that some methodology topics describe metrics or indices—such as cost-index and compute-visibility index—without an obvious dedicated tool for retrieving those metric values directly.

Resources