Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AIMFP

AIMFP

by aryanduntley
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_directives_with_intent_keywords

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search directives by intent keywords using AND/OR logic and return full directive objects with optional keyword match details.

Instructions

Search directives by intent keywords and return full directive objects

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": {
      "keywords": "<keywords>"
    },
    "name": "get_directives_with_intent_keywords"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keywordsYesSingle keyword or array of keywords
match_modeNo"any" for OR logic, "all" for AND logic
include_keyword_matchesNoInclude which keywords matched

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.37.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'return full directive objects,' which is consistent but adds minimal new behavioral context. No contradictions.

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 description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it could benefit from slightly more structure (e.g., noting that it requires keywords).

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?

Given 3 parameters with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate but could specify output details or usage constraints. It is missing some context that would help an agent fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully describes parameters. The description does not add extra meaning beyond 'search by intent keywords,' which is already implied by the name and schema.

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 states 'Search directives by intent keywords and return full directive objects,' which specifies the verb (search), resource (directives), and return type. It is clear but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_directives_by_intent_keyword' that likely do similar things.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any when/not-to-use context or mention of sibling tools that might be more appropriate for certain scenarios.

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