Skip to main content
Glama

Oqmd

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent hints, the description discloses technical specifics: 'BGE-base-en embeddings + cosine over 500-char overlapping windows', a 200K-char limit with truncation flagging, and that the output includes 'character offsets and similarity scores' so the agent can verify verbatim quotes. These details add significant transparency and no contradictions with annotations.

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 dense but well-structured: main purpose first, then usage context, then implementation details. Every sentence adds value, though the length is slightly more than necessary. The section on embedding/window mechanics could arguably be condensed, but it's relevant for behavioral transparency.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining what is returned (passages with offsets and similarity scores), the constraints (character cap), and how it fits into a larger workflow. It is complete for an agent to use effectively without further documentation.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions (e.g., query examples and limit range). The description adds marginal context (e.g., 'text you already pulled') but largely repeats schema information. It does not meaningfully enrich parameter understanding beyond the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record') and clearly identifies the resource (a record's text). It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing the 'already pulled' text and the search-within behavior, contrasting with global tools like search_materials.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt' and it names an alternative/complement (ask_pipeworx_grounded) with a concrete pattern: 'fetch with the gateway, ground over the relevant passages instead of the whole document.' This clearly tells the agent when to use it and how it pairs with a sibling.

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

All Oqmd 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools overlap in purpose: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all answer questions; multiple prediction market tools (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk) have subtle distinctions. An agent would struggle to choose correctly among these.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_subscriptions, generate_llms_txt). A few are noun phrases (stable_phases) but the style is uniform and predictable.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is high for a single server, especially given the mix of two unrelated domains (materials database and general data querying). Many prediction market tools could be consolidated, and the broad scope suggests over-engineering.

Completeness3/5

The materials data side covers search and retrieval adequately. The query side offers many capabilities but has redundant paths (e.g., multiple ways to ask questions) and gaps in editing or updating data. Overall coverage is mixed.

Resources