Skip to main content
Glama

omniseek_statement

Create, list, or retract directed typed statements between graph nodes, persisting your own decision-relevant judgments and resurfacing them on future graph and search queries.

Instructions

Use WHEN you've concluded a DIRECTED, decision-relevant relation OmniSeek does NOT already store mechanically (X acquired_by Y, paper P refutes claim Q, path R requires gate S) and want the graph to carry it forward — record / list / retract typed relation statements (the general sibling of omniseek_ruling; identity types belong to omniseek_ruling).

OmniSeek never MAKES a statement; it STORES yours as declarative state and PROJECTS it at read time (the rulings / sensors.json precedent: judgment persisted as config OmniSeek applies mechanically). A statement is a DIRECTED, typed relation between two graph node ids: "openai --acquired_by--> someone", "paper X --refutes--> claim Y". It surfaces in omniseek_graph's neighborhood / between / since under working / exploratory (never conservative — the pure mechanical world) AND, since the write-side read-back, AMBIENT on any future omniseek_search hit of an endpoint (the metadata.graph.judgments stamp): recording is NOT write-only — your judgment returns to you when you next touch the node. The directed triple (src, dst, type) is the KEY, so re-creating it REPLACES the prior note; direction is YOUR assertion, never normalized.

WHAT EARNS A STATEMENT (the value gate — all three must hold, else it is noise that BURIES the edges carrying a real decision; the graph's value is inverse to its noise density):

  1. NON-MECHANICAL — a relation OmniSeek does NOT already store as a fact. cites / authored / affiliated / coauthored / published_in / about and bare bibliometric counts are the mechanical M/A world; re-asserting them here pollutes the judgment channel, which is for what an API cannot read off: YOUR read.

  2. DECISION-RELEVANT — resurfacing it would change a future call (a positioning, a gate, a disqualifier, a fit verdict, a trajectory read). A true-but-inert edge (both-about-RAG, everyone-at-lab-X-affiliated-with-X) is noise.

  3. AS-OF-STAMPED IF A SNAPSHOT — a point-in-time relation (leads / rising / froze_hiring) drifts while its endpoints stay; put the as-of date in the note, or route it to a sensor, so a future reader never mistakes a stale snapshot for the present.

type is FREE agent vocabulary (mechanically slugged: lowercase, spaces -> underscores, [a-z0-9_] only, <= 40 chars; views never branch on it). An OPEN family, NOT a menu — coin your own; some exemplars across domains: • positioning: attacks_premise_of / near_miss_of / validates_premise_of / does_not_flatten / anchors / introduces (map a competitive / thesis landscape around a claim node). • provenance / motive: sourced_from_motivated_party / covers (a source's motive; a walled or cross-lingual source covering what another missed). • DECISION-space (the non-academic half, easiest to forget): requires / blocked_by / gated_on (a blocking precondition), disqualified_by / ruled_out_because (an option-eliminator), good_fit_for / misaligned_with / froze_hiring / rising (fit + trajectory), reached ... via (a PATH-SAMPLE: how someone actually reached an outcome). Two types are REFUSED with a pointer to omniseek_ruling: same_as / not_same_as — identity is a pair-keyed, symmetric judgment the collapse machinery consumes, kept to omniseek_ruling's one channel.

MEMORY-vs-GRAPH boundary: prose understanding (a lesson, a conclusion, context, confidence, scope) is the ATOM — it lives in YOUR own notes / memory, or in this statement's note. The graph statement is a POINTER, minted only when there is a specific PAIR of wall-addressable nodes whose FUTURE retrieval must carry the judgment; its note / doc point BACK at the prose rather than restating it. Default to prose; the edge is an opt-in index. (Everything is both a thought and an edge; the test is whether two NAMED nodes must carry it forward.)

Endpoints may be ANY node id, even ones no tap minted (claim:..., org:..., inst:label:openai): a statement may pre-date the wall. Such HAND-MINTED ids FRAGMENT across sessions (claim:c3_wedge vs claim:c3_exact_wedge silently orphans the edge), so REUSE an existing id: a create echoes similar_anchors (existing near-match hand-minted ids) so you reuse one instead of minting a near-duplicate; keep a stable slug for your durable anchors.

action picks what to do: • action="create" (src, dst, type, note; optional doc) -> record. note is the REQUIRED reasoning; doc the optional provenance node id (a doc:{source}:{sid} or a note id, strongly encouraged). Returns {created, statement, replaced, similar_anchors?}. A bad type / empty endpoint / empty note / a refused identity type -> {"error": ...}. • action="list" (optional about=node id, optional type) -> {statements, count}, filtered to statements touching about and/or of type. Capped at 200 with a capped flag. • action="delete" (src, dst, type) -> {deleted: true/false}.

Like omniseek_ruling this is a SEPARATE tool from omniseek_graph (omniseek_graph stays read-only, hence batchable in omniseek_gather). Unknown action -> {"error": ...}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
docNo
dstNo
srcNo
noteNo
typeNo
aboutNo
actionYes

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and meets it: it explains that OmniSeek stores user judgment and projects it at read time, that the directed triple is the key and re-creating replaces the prior note, that type values are slugged, and that unknown actions and refused identity types return errors. It also discloses unusual behavior like read-side ambience on future search hits and hand-minted id fragmentation.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is long but front-loaded with purpose and usage, and the sectioned structure (value gate, type family, memory boundary, actions) makes it navigable. Some passages are philosophically elaborate and could be tightened, but most sentences earn their place given the tool's complexity and the absence of schema and annotations.

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?

For a tool with seven parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is unusually complete: it includes action-specific return shapes, error cases, the 200-item list cap, replacement semantics, refusal routing to omniseek_ruling, and the read-side projection effect. An agent has enough to call the tool correctly and know what to expect back.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does comprehensively. It explains action=create/list/delete with required and optional parameters, note/doc roles, src/dst as any node id, type vocabulary and constraints, about/type filtering for list, and the similar_anchors result. Every parameter in the schema maps to meaningful semantic guidance.

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 names a specific verb family ('record / list / retract typed relation statements') and a specific resource (directed typed relations between graph node ids). It explicitly frames itself as 'the general sibling of omniseek_ruling' and notes that identity types belong to omniseek_ruling, so an agent can distinguish it from the closest sibling without opening the schema.

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?

The opening 'Use WHEN...' states the exact triggering condition. It gives exclusion guidance — mechanical facts belong to the M/A world, identity judgments belong to omniseek_ruling, prose belongs in notes/memory, and the tool is separate from read-only omniseek_graph. It also says 'Default to prose; the edge is an opt-in index,' making the when-not path explicit.

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

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Battam1111/omniseek'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server