Skip to main content
Glama

Conceptnet

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Query

query
Read-onlyIdempotent

Generic /query edge search (combine rel, start, end, node, source).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
endNoEnd node
relNoRelation URI (with or without /r/ prefix)
nodeNoMatch either start or end
limitNo
startNoStart node — "/c/en/dog" or "dog"
offsetNo
sourceNoSource dataset URI

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
@idNoQuery URI
viewNoAPI view name
edgesNoMatching edges
@contextNoJSON-LD context

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description confirms it's an edge search but adds minimal behavioral context about combining parameters or response structure. Since annotations are rich, the description is adequate but not enhanced.

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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every part contributes meaning without redundancy.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the rich annotations and presence of an output schema, the description is adequate but lacks explanation of parameter combination behavior and default scoping (e.g., how offset/limit apply). An agent may benefit from more context on usage patterns.

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 coverage is 71%, and the description lists parameters (rel, start, end, node, source) but does not explain how they combine (e.g., AND/OR logic) or provide additional semantics beyond the schema. Examples in the input schema partially compensate, but the description itself adds limited value.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description 'Generic /query edge search (combine rel, start, end, node, source)' clearly indicates the tool performs edge searches in a graph, specifying the main parameters. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'lookup' or 'deep_research', which may serve similar purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings such as 'lookup', 'search_within', and 'entity_profile', explicit context on when this low-level 'query' is appropriate would aid selection.

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