Skip to main content
Glama
VeritasGraph

VeritasGraph

by bibinprathap

veritasgraph_search_terms

Search the business glossary by name, synonym, or definition to locate matching terms and clarify data concepts.

Instructions

Search the business glossary by name, synonym or definition.

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": "veritasgraph_search_terms"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax results (default 20).
queryYesText to search for.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about read-only semantics, result ordering/relevance, truncation beyond the default limit, or match behavior (exact vs. fuzzy, case sensitivity). For a search tool where ranking and matching rules materially affect results, this is a notable gap.

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 tightly written sentence with the key scope information front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness is part of why usage and behavioral context are thin.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read-only search with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the essentials of what is searched. What remains missing — result ordering, matching semantics, and guidance versus veritasgraph_get_term — is what keeps this from being complete.

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 earns extra credit by clarifying which fields the 'query' string is matched against (name, synonym, definition), which the schema's 'Text to search for' does not convey. The 'limit' parameter is left to the schema, which is acceptable.

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?

States a specific verb (search) plus the resource (business glossary) and even the matchable fields (name, synonym, definition), so an agent knows exactly what this retrieves. It stops short of naming how it differs from siblings like veritasgraph_search_entities or veritasgraph_get_term.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative is named. An agent must infer from the phrase 'business glossary' that this is for term lookup rather than entity or graph search, and must guess whether get_term is preferable when an exact term is already known.

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