Skip to main content
Glama

Thisispaper

by io.github.zaxarovcom

Search by taste

search_by_taste
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search by taste metadata: material, light, color, mood, composition, subject. Unique to Thisispaper: these tags were written during human curation. Provide at least one dimension; results are ranked by how many dimensions match, then by recency.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
moodNoMood, e.g. 'austere', 'warm', 'monumental'.
colorNoPalette, e.g. 'white', 'earth tones', 'green'.
lightNoLight quality, e.g. 'diffused', 'natural', 'dramatic'.
limitNoMax results (default 10, max 20).
subjectNoSubject, e.g. 'chapel', 'house', 'pavilion'.
materialNoMaterial, e.g. 'rammed earth', 'concrete', 'timber'.
compositionNoComposition, e.g. 'symmetrical', 'geometric', 'minimal'.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses behavioral details beyond the annotations: results are 'ranked by how many dimensions match, then by recency.' It also explains the provenance of the tags ('written during human curation'), which is not present in the schema or 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, no redundant wording. The uniqueness note and ranking rule earn their place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers purpose, constraints, ranking, and uniqueness. However, it does not explicitly state what kind of results are returned (e.g., projects, items), relying on context from the tool name and siblings.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds a global requirement ('Provide at least one dimension') and explains how multiple parameters interact ('ranked by how many dimensions match'). Since the schema already covers all 7 parameters at 100% with descriptive examples, the description provides useful supplemental context, but no per-parameter details.

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 'Search by taste metadata' and enumerates the specific dimensions (material, light, color, mood, composition, subject). It also distinguishes from generic search by highlighting 'Unique to Thisispaper: these tags were written during human curation.'

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?

It provides a clear usage constraint: 'Provide at least one dimension' and explains ranking behavior. It indicates uniqueness compared to other search tools but doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions.

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

All Thisispaper 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 overlap significantly: search, search_projects, and browse all return project lists, and fetch and get_project both retrieve project details. An agent would struggle to choose the right tool without deep familiarity.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names mix single verbs (browse, discover, fetch, search) with verb_noun compounds (get_api_key, get_project, list_guides, search_projects) and a few irregular forms (search_by_taste, similar_projects). No consistent pattern emerges.

Tool Count4/5

With 10 tools, the count is within a reasonable range for an archive server. However, the presence of redundant tools (three search variants) suggests the set could be trimmed without losing capability.

Completeness4/5

The server covers core read-only archive workflows: browsing, searching, retrieving details, listing guides, finding similar projects, and API key provisioning. Minor gaps like pagination or category listing are not critical for the apparent purpose.

Resources