Skip to main content
Glama

Tenor

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), the description discloses internal behavior: 'BGE-base-en embeddings + cosine over 500-char overlapping windows; cap is 200K chars (longer inputs are truncated and flagged).' This fully informs the agent about how the tool works and its limitations, with no contradictions to 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?

The description is a single dense paragraph that covers purpose, usage, internal mechanics, limits, and pairing. Every sentence adds value, and the core idea is front-loaded. No fluff.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and sibling tools to differentiate from, the description is complete. It explains behavior, limits, how results are structured (passages with offsets and scores), and how to combine with other tools. No gaps.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning: it gives examples for the 'query' parameter and restates the character limit for 'text', but the schema already provides good descriptions. No additional nuance beyond 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record.' It specifies the action (search), the resource (a fetched record), and the scope (inside a record, not across multiple). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'search' which likely searches across documents, and it pairs with 'ask_pipeworx_grounded' for grounding over passages.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly tells when to use this tool: 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt — search_within saves context.' It also mentions pairing with 'ask_pipeworx_grounded'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., if the record is small enough to fit in the prompt), which would have earned a 5.

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

All Tenor 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have nearly identical purposes: autocomplete and search_suggestions both return query completions, ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, and ai_visibility_check overlaps with scan_competitor_ai_presence. The detailed descriptions help for some, but the overlapping clusters create real confusion for an agent selecting a tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming is a mix of single-word nouns (search, featured, posts, categories) and snake_case verb phrases (resolve_entity, compare_entities, ask_pipeworx), with modifier suffixes like _beta and _grounded. While the snake_case is consistent where used, the overall pattern is not uniform across the server.

Tool Count2/5

38 tools is far too many for a server named 'Tenor' whose core GIF API needs only a handful. Much of the surface belongs to Pipeworx data, polymarket analytics, memory, and subscriptions—scope that belongs in a different server or a clearly separated package.

Completeness5/5

The Pipeworx side is remarkably complete: query (ask_pipeworx), grounded answers, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, validation, discovery, memory, subscriptions, and specialized polymarket tools all cover their domain thoroughly. The Tenor side has search, browse, categories, trending, suggestions, and post retrieval—no critical dead ends.

Resources