Skip to main content
Glama
SujayGG

pf-debate-mcp

by SujayGG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

search_cards

Locate debate cards using plain English or debate shorthand. Search by meaning or exact keywords to find evidence on any topic.

Instructions

Search already-cut debate cards. Plain English works ("cards saying data centers raise power bills"), and so does debate shorthand ("econ decline war", "heg", "prolif").

mode: "hybrid" (default: meaning + keywords) or "keyword" (exact words only).
scope: "library" = OpenCaselist corpus (PF, LD, Policy, camp OpenEv files; 2014-2022);
       "mine" = cards the user cut or imported (local installs).
sort: "relevance" or "popular" (most-read by teams first; a strong quality signal for impact cards).
side: "A"/"N" (aff/neg). event: pf | ld | cx | openev. Try a couple of phrasings for important searches.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNohybrid
sideNo
sortNorelevance
eventNo
limitNo
queryYes
scopeNolibrary
year_fromNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.4.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / mode
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "hybrid",
+  "title": "Mode",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.3.0
    • removedOutput schema / properties / result / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "items": {
-      "additionalProperties": true,
-      "type": "object"
-    },
-    "type": "array"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  }
-]
    • addedOutput schema / properties / result / items
      Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "type": "object"
+}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / result / type
      Added value: +"array"
  3. First observedv0.2.1

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does a good job: it explains hybrid vs keyword search behavior, library vs mine scope semantics, and that 'popular' is a quality signal for impact cards. It doesn't explicitly state the operation is read-only or mention rate limits, but for a search tool the behavior is clearly disclosed.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the parameter list is dense and readable. Every sentence adds useful context, though the scope line could be tightened slightly.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description covers most parameters and gives strong guidance for effective searching, but it omits year_from and limit documentation and never addresses alternative tool selection. Since an output schema exists, the lack of return-format explanation is acceptable, but the missing parameter semantics keep it from being complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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. It explains mode, scope, sort, side, and event with concrete values and meanings. However, limit and year_from are left undocumented, and the query parameter is only implied by the intro sentence, leaving a noticeable gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Search already-cut debate cards' with a specific verb and resource, and immediately clarifies that plain English and debate shorthand work. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling caselist_search, relying on the word 'already-cut' to imply the difference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives useful context about search modes, scope, and sort meaning, plus a tip to try alternate phrasings. But it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over caselist_search or other siblings, and there are no when-not-to-use conditions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools