searchSolr-style search across HAL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fl | No | Comma-sep fields to return. | |
| fq | No | Solr filter query. | |
| rows | No | 1-10000 (default 25). | |
| sort | No | e.g. "submittedDate_tdate desc" | |
| query | Yes | Free-text or Solr query (e.g. "title_t:transformer"). | |
| start | No | 0-based offset. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| response | No | Search results | |
| responseHeader | No | Response metadata |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "query": "title_t:transformer"
+ },
+ {
+ "fl": "docid,title_s,submittedDate_tdate",
+ "query": "authId_i:12345",
+ "rows": 100,
+ "sort": "submittedDate_tdate desc"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Solr search response from HAL API",
+ "properties": {
+ "response": {
+ "description": "Search results",
+ "properties": {
+ "docs": {
+ "description": "Array of matching documents",
+ "items": {
+ "description": "Document object with requested fields",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "numFound": {
+ "description": "Total number of matching documents",
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "start": {
+ "description": "Starting offset of results",
+ "type": "integer"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "responseHeader": {
+ "description": "Response metadata",
+ "properties": {
+ "QTime": {
+ "description": "Query execution time in ms",
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "params": {
+ "description": "Query parameters echoed back",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "description": "HTTP status code",
+ "type": "integer"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the Solr-style query syntax and HAL scope, but no behavioral details like rate limits or return size limitations. It does not contradict the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single efficient sentence that front-loads the key information: search type and scope. No filler words; every word contributes.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is minimal but sufficient for a search tool with a rich schema and output schema. However, it lacks usage context and doesn't address when to prefer this over search_within or other search-related siblings, leaving a gap in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides full descriptions for all six parameters, so the schema already carries the parameter semantics. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the 'Solr-style' hint, which slightly clarifies the query parameter syntax.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Solr-style search across HAL' clearly identifies the tool as a search operation over HAL using Solr query syntax. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'search_within', but the scope and Solr-style hint differentiate it from non-search tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'search_within' or 'get'. The description simply states what the tool does, with no exclusions, prerequisites, or recommendation of alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools occupy nearly the same role: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are deliberately near-duplicates, while deep_research, validate_claim, bet_research, and the polymarket_* family all route factual questions to overlapping data pipelines. Generic single-word tools like get, search, structure, and author add further ambiguity, making it hard for an agent to confidently pick the right tool.
Names are consistently lowercase snake_case, but they mix verb_noun tools (list_subscriptions, resolve_entity, validate_claim) with bare nouns (author, get, search, structure) and domain-prefixed families (ask_pipeworx, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*). The conventions are readable but not predictable enough to infer behavior from the name alone.
35 tools is heavy for a single server, especially when many are meta-routers or near-variants of each other. The broad data-research scope justifies some breadth, but the surface feels padded with overlapping research and prediction-market tools rather than a tight, well-scoped set.
For its apparent purpose — authoritative data lookup, verification, research, entity profiling, prediction-market analysis, and monitoring — the surface is largely complete: retrieval, grounded answers, deep research, comparison, change tracking, subscriptions, and memory are all covered. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct tool for managing alert delivery or for some of the vague HAL-style operations, but agents can work around these via the router tools.