io.github.MohdSaleh/tinyfish-guided-research
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| DATABASE_URL | No | PostgreSQL connection string for shared production deployments, e.g., 'postgresql://user:password@host:5432/database?sslmode=require'. | |
| RESEARCH_DB_PATH | No | Path to the SQLite database file for local development. Defaults to a local SQLite database if not set. | |
| TINYFISH_API_KEY | Yes | Your TinyFish API key. |
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {
"listChanged": false
} |
| prompts | {
"listChanged": false
} |
| resources | {
"subscribe": false,
"listChanged": false
} |
| experimental | {} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| check_server_configA | Check API key, DNS, and live TinyFish Search/Fetch endpoint health. |
| init_researchB | Start a research session with an explicit latency/coverage profile. FAST is the default and preserves the same hard evidence gates while fetching/reviewing fewer candidates and stopping resolved claims early. |
| plan_researchB | Validate and store the research plan before any retrieval. |
| dispatch_parallel_subagentsB | Execute independent retrieval tracks concurrently and return only a compact review shortlist. |
| discovery_searchD | Run a compact additional retrieval wave; later waves consume the global follow-up budget. |
| screen_sourcesD | Initial semantic source gate over only the server-provided review shortlist. |
| register_claimsA | Register new claims only; does not accept evidence. This separation prevents claim creation and evidence judgment from being conflated in one call. Server generates every claim_id. |
| split_claimC | Split a compound claim. The parent is superseded automatically. |
| override_atomicityC | Explicitly override an atomicity warning for a maximally atomic claim. |
| revise_claimA | Replace an incorrect/overbroad active claim without leaving the parent unresolved. The old claim is superseded automatically. Use this for semantic revision; use split_claim when one claim must become multiple children. |
| bind_evidenceA | Bind direct source quotations to existing claims and verify quote presence. This tool does NOT accept semantic stance. Keeping quote binding separate from entailment judgment gives weak client models one bounded operation at a time and prevents a topical passage from becoming support merely because it was attached to a claim. |
| judge_evidenceB | Assign bounded semantic relation labels to quote-verified evidence. The server owns evidence IDs and quote integrity. The client does exactly one semantic task here: classify the relationship between the displayed quote and its claim. |
| assess_claimsC | Compute deterministic claim resolution and return a complete next-step packet. |
| research_unknownsC | Run targeted retrieval only for claims that still need work, then return one compact review packet. |
| review_candidatesA | Unified claim/source review: relevance + direct quote + semantic relation. Initial broad retrieval still uses screen_sources before claims exist. Once claim IDs exist, this is the preferred path for both initial evidence and targeted gap evidence; bind_evidence/judge_evidence remain low-level compatibility tools rather than the normal happy path. |
| get_source_contextA | Return a few relevant passages from persisted full source content. Use when the client needs a better direct quote without re-fetching the URL. |
| review_claim_tensionsA | Record cross-claim tensions after the claim graph is stable. Mandatory once for contested sessions. Tensions may describe genuine theoretical disagreement even when both claims accurately represent different positions. |
| verify_citationsA | Server-owned citation integrity + coverage audit. Normal use: pass research_id only. The server automatically selects the strongest quote-verified winning evidence for each strongly resolved claim. Optional citations are accepted only as explicit client overrides. |
| finalize_researchC | Finalize into an auditable synthesis manifest; do not generate prose inside the MCP. |
| get_research_stateB | Debug/inspection tool. Returns compact protocol state, not full source text. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 20 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct role in the research pipeline: planning, health checks, initialization, parallel retrieval, discovery, screening, claim lifecycle (register, split, revise, override), evidence binding, judging, assessment, gap targeting, unified review, context retrieval, tension recording, citation audit, finalization, and state inspection. Even overlapping tools like review_candidates vs bind_evidence are explicitly distinguished by the description, leaving no ambiguity for an agent.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., plan_research, dispatch_parallel_subagents, verify_citations). The naming convention is uniform and predictable, making it easy for an agent to infer action and target from each name.
With 20 tools, the surface is larger than the typical 3–15 range, but the complexity of the guided research workflow—spanning planning, retrieval, claim management, evidence handling, and finalization—justifies the count. Each tool has a specific purpose and the number is proportionate to the domain's needs, though it is on the heavier side.
The tool set covers the entire research lifecycle: from plan validation and server health checks to parallel retrieval, source screening, claim registration/splitting/revising, evidence binding and judging, claim assessment, targeted gap filling, unified review, tension recording, citation verification, finalization, and state inspection. No obvious dead ends or missing operations are apparent; the surface is comprehensive and well-integrated.