Skip to main content
Glama

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 provide safety hints (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.). Description adds: 'BGE-base-en embeddings + cosine over 500-char overlapping windows; cap is 200K chars (longer inputs are truncated and flagged)'. 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?

Front-loaded with purpose ('Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record'). Four sentences, no fluff. Every sentence adds value: usage, benefits, pairing, technical details, limitations.

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 no output schema, description covers: core function, embedding details, windowing, character limit, truncation behavior, and integration with sibling. Complete for a search tool.

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% (all parameters have descriptions). Description adds example queries and default limit but repeats schema info (e.g., 'max ~200K chars'). Baseline 3 is appropriate; marginal added value.

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+resource: 'Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'ask_pipeworx_grounded' and explains when to use this tool instead of alternatives.

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 when-to-use: 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt.' Provides usage guidance: 'saves context, returns only the passages that matter' and pairs with 'ask_pipeworx_grounded'. No when-not-to, but strongly implied by context.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but some overlapping function sets (e.g., multiple Polymarket tools, multiple ask/research tools) could cause confusion. However, descriptions are detailed enough to differentiate.

Naming Consistency4/5

Naming is mostly consistent with snake_case and verb+noun patterns, but a few tools start with nouns (polymarket_*, pipeworx_*), creating minor inconsistency.

Tool Count3/5

At 32 tools, the server feels heavy and covers many disparate domains. While each tool has its place, the high count strains coherence.

Completeness2/5

Given the server name 'Rentcast', only two tools relate to rental data. The rest cover unrelated domains, leaving a major gap for the intended primary purpose.