Skip to main content
Glama

Asana

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Search Within a Source

search_within
Read-onlyIdempotent

Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record. Pass the text you already pulled (e.g. a SEC 10-K body, an article, a long tool result) plus a natural-language query; get back the top-N passages with character offsets and similarity scores. Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt — search_within saves context, returns only the passages that matter, and every passage carries an offset so the agent can verify a verbatim quote. Pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded: fetch with the gateway, ground over the relevant passages instead of the whole document. BGE-base-en embeddings + cosine over 500-char overlapping windows; cap is 200K chars (longer inputs are truncated and flagged).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesThe document text to search inside (max ~200K chars).
limitNoMax passages to return (1-20, default 5).
queryYesNatural-language query — what passages do you want? E.g. "supply-chain risk", "fiscal year 2024 revenue", "drug interactions with warfarin".

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and not destructive. Description adds implementation details: embeddings model, window size, character cap with truncation flag, and return fields. No contradiction.

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?

Two paragraphs, about 120 words, no fluff. Core purpose is front-loaded, followed by technical details and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Covers use case, technical details, limits, and pairing guidance. Lacks explicit output format specification but mentions return fields. Could be more complete with edge-case handling, but overall adequate.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description provides usage examples for the query parameter but does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 performs semantic search inside a fetched record, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded and context-saving benefits.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'when the record is too big to cram into the prompt'. Also provides a workflow pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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

All Asana 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The tool set mixes Asana project management tools with a large number of Pipeworx data retrieval tools. Within the Pipeworx subset, tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded have overlapping purposes, and multiple prediction market tools exist (e.g., polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges). This creates ambiguity and potential for misselection.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names lack a consistent pattern. Some use 'asana_' prefix, others use descriptive phrases (e.g., 'compare_entities', 'generate_llms_txt'), and some are single verbs (e.g., 'forget', 'remember'). Mix of different conventions leads to unpredictability.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools is high for a server named 'Asana', yet only 6 tools are Asana-specific. The majority are Pipeworx tools unrelated to Asana. This overloading makes the server feel bloated and off-purpose.

Completeness2/5

For Asana functionality, the set is incomplete: missing update/delete task, project management features, etc. The Pipeworx tools are extensive but irrelevant to the server's stated purpose, leaving the Asana workflow with notable gaps.

Resources