Skip to main content
Glama

DC Member API

by io.github.dynamitecircle

search_profiles

GET /search/profiles — Search profiles

Full-text search across DCer profiles — headlines, bios, business descriptions, expertise, hobbies, etc. Returns matching profile records with privacy gates applied (hidden + guest profiles filtered out).

For structured/AI-driven matchmaking ("DCers in Lisbon who run SaaS"), prefer POST /profile-match — it has a richer ranking pipeline and filters. This endpoint is the plain full-text fallback.

Query syntax (q=): plain words match with prefix + typo tolerance. Wrap a phrase in double quotes to require an exact ordered match — e.g. q="remote work". AND/OR/NOT/parentheses are NOT parsed in q= — use the structured filter params below for boolean composition.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qYesSearch text. Required.
pageNo1-indexed page number.
limitNoMax hits per page (1-50).

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: returns matching profiles with privacy gates (hidden/guest profiles filtered), query syntax (prefix, typo tolerance, phrase matching, no boolean parsing). It does not detail rate limits or side effects, but the read-only nature is implied. Solid transparency.

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 well-structured with a summary line, detailed functionality, usage alternative, and query syntax rules. Every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded. No waste.

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 no output schema, the description states return type (matching profile records with privacy gates) but lacks detail on response fields or pagination behavior beyond parameters. It adequately covers what the tool does but could elaborate on output structure. Still sufficiently complete for its simplicity.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds query syntax details (prefix, typo tolerance, phrase matching) that go beyond the schema's field descriptions. This provides practical guidance for using the q parameter effectively.

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 tool performs full-text search across DCer profiles, specifying the endpoint (GET /search/profiles) and the fields searched (headlines, bios, etc.). It distinguishes from the sibling POST /profile-match, making purpose and differentiation explicit.

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 description explicitly advises when to use search_profiles vs POST /profile-match: plain full-text search vs structured/AI-driven matchmaking. It also notes privacy gates but doesn't cover all search siblings (e.g., search_chapters). The alternative is well-specified, earning a 4.

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

All DC Member API 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Despite the large number of tools, each has a detailed description that clearly distinguishes its purpose. Minor potential overlaps (e.g., search vs. resource-specific search, own vs. other's agenda) are well documented, so an agent can differentiate them.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun or resource_subresource_action pattern in snake_case. A few tools are just nouns (e.g., 'alerts', 'announcements'), but these are top-level listing endpoints; overall the naming is predictable.

Tool Count2/5

85 tools is very high for a single server, making it difficult for an agent to efficiently explore and select the right tool. While each tool seems justified for the broad domain, the count feels overwhelming and could be streamlined.

Completeness3/5

The tool surface covers most major areas (events, trips, chapters, rooms, search, profile, etc.) with CRUD or lifecycle operations. However, the lack of a 'send message' tool for rooms is a notable gap, and some resources (e.g., events) are read-only on creation/update, limiting agent workflows.

Resources