Skip to main content
Glama

Data Dc

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds significant behavioral details: BGE-base-en embeddings, cosine similarity, 500-char overlapping windows, 200K character cap with truncation flagging. This fully discloses how the tool works and its limitations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: use case, output, pairing, technical details. It could be slightly more concise by merging some sentences, but overall efficient.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description fully explains return values (top-N passages, character offsets, similarity scores, truncation flag). It covers input, usage, behavior, and limitations completely for a tool of this complexity.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific information beyond what the input schema already provides (text, limit, query are documented in schema). The description reiterates the overall concept but no extra per-param semantics.

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, with examples (SEC 10-K, article) and concrete output (passages with offsets and similarity scores). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded and emphasizing context-saving when records are too large.

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 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt' and 'returns only the passages that matter', giving clear guidance. It also mentions pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded as an alternative workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it, missing a full exclusion statement.

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

All Data Dc 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are nearly identical; multiple Polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) share similar edge-detection and arbitrage goals, creating potential confusion for an agent.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using underscores (e.g., ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, resolve_entity). There are minor deviations like generate_llms_txt and scan_competitor_ai_presence, but overall the naming is predictable and clear.

Tool Count3/5

With 34 tools, the server is on the heavier side but still justified given its broad scope (data querying, entity profiles, monitoring, research, etc.). The count feels slightly high, but each tool serves a specific purpose; however, some consolidation could reduce redundancy.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of tasks: data lookup, entity profiling, comparison, monitoring, memory, research, and claim verification. Minor gaps exist, such as lack of explicit data source listing or user preference management, but the core workflows are well-supported.

Resources