Skip to main content
Glama

search_decisions

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search decision records using hybrid keyword and vector matching to retrieve relevant rulings and their current standing.

Instructions

Hybrid search (BM25 + clause BM25 + vector) over decisions; each hit carries its standing.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_decisions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
queryYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description adds value by disclosing the hybrid ranking mechanics and that each hit carries its standing. That tells the agent something about result composition beyond the annotations. It stops short of describing ranking behavior or pagination beyond `limit`.

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?

A single compact sentence with zero filler, and the retrieval-method detail is front-loaded. The jargon density (BM25, clause BM25) is efficient for a technical reader but borders on opaque without expansion.

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?

An output schema exists, so explaining return values is not required, and annotations cover safety. However, for a search tool with two undocumented parameters and no routing guidance against a dense sibling set, the definition is only minimally sufficient.

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 coverage is 0%: neither `query` nor `limit` carries a description, and the tool text adds no meaning about query syntax, matching behavior, or what limit affects (hit count vs. scoring candidates). With two real parameters and no compensation, the description leaves the agent guessing.

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 names a specific verb+resource ("search ... over decisions") and specifies the retrieval method (BM25 + clause BM25 + vector), which is distinctive. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as query_graph or find_overlaps, so the agent must infer differentiation from the name alone.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent learns only that it is a search tool over decisions, leaving sibling selection (e.g. query_graph, find_overlaps) to inference.

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