Skip to main content
Glama

record_research_finding

Record a timestamped research finding or belief about an entity. Update previous claims with evidence and confidence to preserve the full chain of reasoning across sessions.

Instructions

Record a timestamped research belief or finding about an entity.

Use this whenever you reach a conclusion, update a previous belief, or
encounter evidence that changes your view. The timeline preserves the full
chain of reasoning across sessions.

Args:
    entity: What this claim is about. Use a consistent name across sessions
        (e.g. "RDT sensitivity in low-burden areas", "Disease X elimination study",
        "DHIS2 tracker performance").
    claim: Your current belief or finding in 1-3 sentences.
    evidence: What supports this claim — paper citation, data result, meeting
        discussion. Brief reference is enough.
    confidence: "low", "medium", or "high".
    source_type: "session", "paper", "meeting", "data_analysis", "literature_review".
    source_ref: Specific reference — DOI, file path, meeting date.
    supersedes_id: If this replaces a previous claim, pass that claim's id.
        Set to 0 if this is a new claim with no predecessor.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
entityYes
claimYes
evidenceNo
confidenceNomedium
source_typeNosession
source_refNo
supersedes_idNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the tool is timestamped and preserves chain of reasoning across sessions via supersedes_id. However, it does not explicitly state that it creates/modifies data, requires permissions, or has any side effects. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 front-loaded with purpose and use cases, followed by a well-organized Args list. Each sentence is relevant and concise. No redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

Given 7 parameters (2 required, 5 with defaults) and no annotations, the description covers all parameters and explains behavior (timestamping, chaining). It does not mention the return value, but an output schema is provided (not shown). Slight gap in completeness.

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%, but the tool description includes a detailed Args section covering all 7 parameters. It provides context on usage (consistent naming for entity, 1-3 sentences for claim, examples for evidence and source_ref, allowed values for confidence and source_type, and how to use supersedes_id). This greatly adds meaning 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 records 'a timestamped research belief or finding about an entity.' It specifies when to use it (conclusion, update, evidence) and distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on research findings and timeline preservation.

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 states when to use the tool ('reach a conclusion, update a previous belief, or encounter evidence that changes your view') and provides guidance on consistent naming for the entity. It doesn't specify when not to use it or list alternatives, but the context is clear.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

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/SVerITG/Metis_PH'

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