Skip to main content
Glama

Pulsedive

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".

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds rich behavioral detail beyond those: it mentions output includes character offsets and similarity scores, uses BGE-base-en embeddings with cosine over 500-character overlapping windows, and discloses a 200K char cap with truncation and flagging. No contradiction 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Three dense sentences with no fluff. Every sentence contributes: operation semantics, use-case justification, workflow pairing, and technical constraints. Structure is front-loaded with the core action and then dives into specifics.

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 tool has no output schema, the description compensates by explaining return values (passages with offsets and similarity scores). It also covers the operational workflow, performance characteristics, and truncation behavior, making it complete for accurate invocation and result interpretation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context around parameter usage (e.g., passing text already pulled, natural-language query examples) but does not materially exceed the schema's descriptions for text, query, and limit. It is consistent but not enriching.

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 a specific verb-resource relationship: 'Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record.' It differentiates itself from siblings by emphasizing it operates on already-fetched text rather than a broader database, and explicitly references a companion tool (ask_pipeworx_grounded) to clarify its role.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt.' It also provides a pairing workflow ('Pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded: fetch with the gateway, ground over the relevant passages'), giving clear guidance on how it fits alongside alternatives.

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

All Pulsedive 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., five 'ask_pipeworx' variants and multiple prediction market tools with subtle distinctions. An agent would struggle to pick the correct tool without careful reading of long descriptions.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern with domain prefixes (pipeworx_, polymarket_, pulsedive_), but a few standalone verbs (forget, recall) break the pattern slightly. Overall consistent within groups.

Tool Count3/5

33 tools is on the heavy side, but the server covers a broad range of domains (data querying, prediction markets, security, subscriptions). The count is borderline but not excessive given the scope.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide array of operations: querying, entity analysis, comparisons, prediction market edge detection, subscriptions, memory, and scanning. Minor gaps exist (e.g., limited to Polymarket/Kalshi for prediction markets), but overall the surface is comprehensive.

Resources