Skip to main content
Glama

Bhagavad Gita

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: details on embeddings (BGE-base-en, cosine), windowing (500-char overlapping), character cap (200K with truncation), and return structure (passages with offsets). Annotations only provide readOnly, openWorld, idempotent hints.

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 sentences, front-loaded with core purpose, followed by usage guidance and technical details. Every sentence adds value, no 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 no output schema, the description explains exactly what is returned (passages with offsets and similarity scores). It also covers technical constraints (max chars, truncation, embedding model). Complete for the tool's complexity.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds further context on how parameters are used (e.g., query example, truncation flag), but schema already does heavy lifting. Extra value in explaining the embedding details and output format.

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 semantic search inside a fetched record, using a specific verb 'search within' and resource 'a fetched record'. It distinguishes from siblings like ask_pipeworx_grounded by focusing on retrieving passages from already fetched text.

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?

Explicit guidance on when to use: when the record is too large for the prompt. It also mentions pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded, providing a concrete workflow. No alternatives are listed but the context is clear.

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

All Bhagavad Gita 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Individual tools have detailed descriptions and mostly distinct purposes, but the mix of domains (scripture, finance, data lookup) could confuse an agent about which tool to choose for a given task. However, within each subdomain, tools are clearly differentiated.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow no consistent pattern: some are verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities), some are noun_verb (entity_profile, recent_changes), and some are single verbs (forget, recall). The mix of snake_case with varied starting parts makes naming unpredictable.

Tool Count1/5

With 23 tools but only 3 related to the server's stated purpose (Bhagavad Gita), the tool count is severely mismatched. The vast majority belong to data analytics and finance, making the set feel bloated and mis-scoped.

Completeness1/5

For a Bhagavad Gita server, only list_chapters, get_chapter, and get_verse are provided, missing obvious features like search, commentary comparison, or multiple translations. The other tools are irrelevant to the domain, leaving it extremely incomplete.

Resources