Skip to main content
Glama

Scopeweb

by io.scopeweb
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

kb_search

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this to understand how something works before explaining it. Do NOT use it to decide anything: registry policy and registration status come from the dedicated tools, and they win. Semantic search over a small curated corpus: this system's own documentation and methodology, ICANN policy, and per-registry policy documents. Read-only. Cannot spend money. Returns passages with the source, its URL, and what that source may be cited FOR. THIS IS RETRIEVAL, NOT AUTHORITY. A vector search always returns its nearest neighbour, so it always looks confident; nearness is not correctness, and a passage being returned is not evidence that it answers you. Use it to understand how something works. Do NOT use it to decide anything: registry policy comes from GET /tld/:tld/policy, which carries per-field citations and marks unverified fields as unknown, and registration status comes from check_live via RDAP/WHOIS. If those two disagree with a passage here, they win.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYes
top_kNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYes
model_vNo
passagesYes
not_a_claim_aboutNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "model_v": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "not_a_claim_about": {
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "passages": {
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "query": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "query",
+    "passages"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/destructive, but the description adds substantially more: 'Cannot spend money,' the shape of returned data (source, URL, what it may be cited FOR), and the critical epistemic caveat that a vector search 'always returns its nearest neighbour, so it always looks confident; nearness is not correctness.' That is real behavioral context beyond structured fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

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

Front-loaded with the core directive and well organized, but it repeats itself almost verbatim — 'Use this to understand how something works' and 'Do NOT use it to decide anything' each appear twice, and the retrieval-not-authority warning is stated in two places. The redundancy costs size without adding information.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the annotations plus description together cover safety, authority precedence, and use context well. The one gap is parameter behavior (top_k, query format), which nothing else supplies.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% for 2 parameters (query, top_k), and the description never explains query syntax or the meaning/effect of top_k. Since the schema does not compensate, the description should have covered this and does not.

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?

States a precise verb and resource plus scope: 'Semantic search over a small curated corpus: this system's own documentation and methodology, ICANN policy, and per-registry policy documents.' An agent can immediately distinguish this retrieval tool from siblings like check_live, get_finance, or search.

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 ('understand how something works before explaining it'), when-not-to-use ('Do NOT use it to decide anything'), and names the alternatives that win: 'registry policy comes from GET /tld/:tld/policy... registration status comes from check_live via RDAP/WHOIS.' The precedence rule is spelled out rather than implied.

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

All Scopeweb toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources