Skip to main content
Glama

rationale_search

Search cached review comments and issue discussions by keyword to retrieve rationale snippets and distilled decision records, helping you understand why a change was made.

Instructions

Search cached tracker rationale snippets (review comments, issue / change-request discussion) by keyword. A hit whose thread has a distilled decision record carries it as record (the model's root-cause / decision / outcome over the whole thread).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
queryYes
explainNo
includeNoWhat to include: `git`, `papertrail` (both on by default), `generated`, `fallback` (off by default). Omit to keep defaults; an explicit list is the exact on-set.
worktreeNoAbsolute path to a linked git worktree you're working in. When set, results are served from that worktree's branch overlay (its committed + uncommitted changes) on top of the indexed checkout; omit to query the indexed checkout. An unrelated/invalid path falls back to it.
graph_limitNo
include_graphNocompact
Behavior3/5

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

Discloses that hits may carry a 'record' for threads with distilled decisions, but lacks details on pagination, error handling, or performance. No annotations to supplement.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and key output detail. No wasted words.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With 7 parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is inadequate. It explains the record field but ignores parameter usage and behavior.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Description does not mention any parameters; schema coverage is only 29% and description adds no param context. Missing critical guidance on how to use 'include', 'worktree', or 'graph_limit'.

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?

The description clearly states it searches cached tracker rationale snippets by keyword, and explains the return field 'record'. This distinguishes it from siblings like semantic_search or commit_search.

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. For example, it doesn't contrast with semantic_search or papertrail_issue_search.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/cq27-dev/rag-rat'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server