Skip to main content
Glama

Crawlbase

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".

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations: embedding model (BGE-base-en), similarity measure (cosine), window size (500-char overlapping), and input cap (200K chars with truncation and flagging). 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?

The description is efficient and well-structured: it opens with a clear single-line purpose, then explains usage guidance, return value, workflow pairing, and technical details. Every sentence adds value; no filler.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers the return structure (top-N passages with character offsets and similarity scores), input constraints (200K chars), and integration with sibling tools. For a 3-parameter tool, this provides complete context for correct invocation.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (text, query, limit). The description enhances meaning by clarifying that 'query' is natural-language, explaining the 'text' cap and truncation behavior, and noting that offsets enable verbatim quote verification. This adds context beyond the schema.

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, specifies the return value (passages with offsets and scores), and distinguishes it from siblings like ask_pipeworx_grounded by highlighting when to use it (record too big for prompt).

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 ('when the record is too big to cram into the prompt') and pairs it with an alternative tool (ask_pipeworx_grounded). It lacks explicit 'when not to use' but provides sufficient guidance for effective selection.

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

All Crawlbase 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

The toolset is largely distinct: scraping, research, prediction-market, memory, and subscription tools each have clear boundaries. The ask_pipeworx family and the six Polymarket tools are closely related variants, but their descriptions provide explicit usage guidance, so an agent can select correctly with attention.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools use snake_case with descriptive names, but conventions are mixed: brand-prefixed noun phrases (crawlbase_scrape, polymarket_arbitrage, pipeworx_trending) sit alongside verb_noun tools (compare_entities, validate_claim) and bare verbs (remember, subscribe). The result is readable but not predictable.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools, the server spans several distinct domains (web scraping, structured data research, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, feedback), making it feel like a kitchen sink rather than a focused toolset. The count is beyond the 'heavy' threshold and would benefit from splitting into separate servers.

Completeness4/5

The research surface is thorough: routing, grounded answers, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, claim validation, and identifier resolution cover most real-world data needs. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit tool to fetch pipeworx:// resource URIs and no crawler management for the scraping side.

Resources