Skip to main content
Glama

Conceptnet

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Lookup

lookup
Read-onlyIdempotent

All edges touching a term in a language.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
langNoISO-639-1 code (default en)
termYesWord or phrase
limitNo1-1000 (default 50)
offsetNo0-based offset
only_relNoRestrict to one relation (e.g. "IsA", "UsedFor")
end_node_langNoRestrict end-node language

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
@idNoNode URI
viewNoAPI view name
edgesNoList of edges involving this node
@contextNoJSON-LD context

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations clearly indicate the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds minimal behavioral context (e.g., 'edges'), but nothing contradictory.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely short (one phrase), which is concise but lacks structure and clarity. It could benefit from a clearer sentence without being overly verbose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the six parameters and the knowledge-graph domain, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain offset/limit pagination, relation types, or the return format, even though an output schema exists.

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 each parameter is documented. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states 'All edges touching a term in a language', which gives a general idea of retrieving relationships but is vague about what 'edges' are and doesn't differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'polymarket_edges'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context for usage or exclusions are provided.

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

All Conceptnet 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical, and the five polymarket_* tools (arbitrage, edges, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread) all target prediction-market opportunities. The memory tools (remember/recall/forget) are distinct, as are subscriptions, but the routing and Polymarket clusters create real misselection risk.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case, but the pattern is mixed: some are verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, discover_tools, resolve_entity), some are noun_verb or adjective_noun (bet_research, entity_profile, pipeworx_trending, recent_changes), and some are bare nouns/verbs (lookup, query, recall, relatedness). The 'polymarket_*' and 'ask_pipeworx*' families are consistent internally, but the overall set lacks a uniform verb-first convention.

Tool Count2/5

With 34 tools, the server is heavily over-scoped for a server named 'Conceptnet' — the vast majority of tools belong to a separate Pipeworx data-access product, not a semantic-network API. While each tool has a use, the count feels bloated and the server name misrepresents the actual surface.

Completeness4/5

The ConceptNet portion is complete (lookup, query, relatedness cover graph traversal). The Pipeworx portion is also fairly complete: universal router, grounded mode, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, claim validation, subscription lifecycle, memory, and feedback. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct SEC filing fetch without going through ask_pipeworx), but the meta-tools mostly fill them.

Resources