Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SEAF MCP Server

SEAF MCP Server

by aberkromb
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Поиск объектов

find_entities
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search for entities by approximate name or substring across all SEAF sections or one section, returning matching section, ID, and title for follow-up lookup.

Instructions

Когда вызывать: известно только примерное название объекта (система, сервис, человек) — поиск по подстроке в ID/title/description всех разделов (или одного). Возвращает total и items {section, id, title}. Когда раздел и условия по полям известны точно, эффективнее list_entities. Дальше: get_entity или get_relations по найденному id.

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": {
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "find_entities"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesПодстрока для поиска
limitNoМакс. число результатов (1-200, по умолчанию 20)
sectionNoОграничить поиск разделом (опционально)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the return shape (total and items {section, id, title}), which is important given there is no output schema. It stops short of describing matching semantics (case sensitivity, ranking, truncation at limit), which is a real remaining gap.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the when-to-call condition, then the return shape, then routing to alternatives and next steps. Every sentence carries distinct information; none restates the name or the schema.

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 three-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers what it does, when to prefer it, what it returns structurally, and where to go next. Nothing essential to a correct first invocation is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: the `text` parameter matches against ID, title and description specifically, and `section` is framed as restricting the otherwise all-section search. That field-level detail is genuinely beyond "Подстрока для поиска".

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?

Names a specific operation (substring search over ID/title/description) and the resource (entities across all sections or one section), and explicitly contrasts itself with sibling list_entities. An agent can distinguish it from get_entity / list_entities / find_relation_paths without opening a 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?

States the triggering condition explicitly ("известно только примерное название объекта"), names the alternative (list_entities) and the condition that selects it (section and field conditions known precisely), and prescribes the follow-up tools (get_entity, get_relations) on a found id.

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