Skip to main content
Glama

mcp-knowledge

by io.github.getgapup

content_similar

Read-only

Find content entities similar to a given one. For embedded franchises this uses SEMANTIC vector similarity (pgvector) over the enrichment profile — surfacing entities that feel alike even when their tags differ literally. Falls back to shared enrichment-tag overlap for works or non-embedded entities. Each result carries a similarity score and its entity-level freshness/confidence (verifiable, sourced). When to use this tool: an agent wants recommendations or lookalikes for a franchise or work. Input: an entity_id and its type.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
asyncNoIf true, returns a job_id immediately (<200ms) instead of waiting for the result. Poll the result with job_result(job_id). Use for slow tools to avoid client timeouts.
limitNo
entity_idYesEntity id from content_catalog
entity_typeNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countYes
methodYesHow similarity was computed.
similarYes
entity_idYes
source_provenanceYesProvenance of the source entity used to compute similarity.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and open-world. The description adds valuable behavioral details: the dual approach (semantic vector similarity vs. tag overlap), result contents (similarity score, freshness/confidence), and the fallback logic. No contradictions with 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 concise, front-loaded with the main action, then explains methodology and usage in a few efficient sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the algorithm, use case, and result fields (similarity score, freshness). It is complete for the complexity level and sibling differentiation.

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 description coverage is 50% (async and entity_id described). The description mentions entity_id and entity_type but does not explain limit or the enum values for entity_type. It adds some meaning beyond the schema but leaves significant gaps for limit and async behavior.

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 it finds content entities similar to a given one, specifies the use of semantic vector similarity for embedded franchises and tag overlap for works, and distinguishes itself from other content tools by focusing on similarity and recommendations.

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 says 'When to use this tool: an agent wants recommendations or lookalikes for a franchise or work,' providing clear usage guidance. It does not explicitly give alternatives or when not to use, but the context is sufficient for agent decision-making.

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

All mcp-knowledge 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

C2.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, especially in competitive intelligence, ESG, and risk assessment. For example, there are multiple tools for competitor analysis (competitive_deep_dive, competitor_intel, competitor_moves, etc.) with unclear boundaries. Agents would struggle to select the correct tool without deep understanding of subtle differences.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are a mix of English and French, and follow no consistent pattern. Some use snake_case (e.g., abm_architect, action_plan_esg), while others are verb-focused (e.g., content_catalog, fx_rate). The lack of a uniform naming convention makes it hard for agents to predict tool names.

Tool Count1/5

With 271 tools, the server is excessively large. Even for a broad knowledge domain, this number of tools makes discovery and selection inefficient. Typical coherent servers have 3-15 tools; this has an order of magnitude more, indicating poor scoping.

Completeness3/5

The tool set covers many domains (compliance, finance, marketing, HR, etc.), but the coverage is uneven due to redundancy. Key areas have multiple overlapping tools, while some sub-domains may still have gaps. Overall, the surface is broad but not well-curated.

Resources