Skip to main content
Glama

Data La

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

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate safe read-only, open-world, idempotent behavior. The description adds technical details: embeddings (BGE-base-en), similarity method (cosine), chunking (500-char overlapping windows), and a clear cap (200K chars with truncation flag). It also notes that results include character offsets for verification.

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 concise (about 6 lines) and front-loaded with the key action. Every sentence adds value: examples, use case, pairing, technical details, and limitations. 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 the moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers inputs, behavior, return format, and limitations (truncation). It answers what the tool does, when to use it, what the result looks like, and how it works internally.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description enhances these by providing concrete examples (SEC 10-K, article, tool result) and explaining the return format (top-N passages with offsets and scores), which is not in 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 starts with "Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record," clearly stating the tool's function: searching within a given text. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning its companion tool ask_pipeworx_grounded, showing a specific use case.

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?

The description explicitly says "Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt" and explains the benefit: saving context and returning only relevant passages. It also pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded, providing guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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

All Data La 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have closely related or overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (currently identical), and ask_pipeworx_grounded all route to the same underlying toolset, while discover_tools and suggest_questions both help agents discover capabilities. The polymarket_* family also has several opportunity-scanning tools with subtle differences, though detailed descriptions help clarify.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are mostly snake_case but follow mixed patterns: verb-first (ask_pipeworx, validate_claim), noun-first (entity_profile, bet_research, la_recent), and bare verbs (remember, forget, unsubscribe). The prefix groups (la_, pipeworx_, polymarket_) show some consistency, but there is no uniform verb_noun convention.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well into the 'too many' range for a single server. The surface bundles several distinct domains—structured data querying, prediction markets, LA open data, memory, subscriptions, and npm scanning—making it feel like a kitchen sink rather than a focused toolset.

Completeness4/5

Within each bundled sub-domain, coverage is strong: query/grounded/research/entity-profile/compare/validate covers data workflows; polymarket tools include research, edge scan, arbitrage, fill-risk, and cross-venue spread; LA data has search/query/recent; memory and subscription lifecycles are fully CRUD. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no way to browse LA dataset attributes beyond search), but no major dead ends.

Resources