Skip to main content
Glama

reqs_embed

Stores a requirement's embedding vector in the local tracker for later similarity searches via reqs_search_similar.

Instructions

Store an embedding vector for a requirement.

YOU compute the embedding, in your own process, and pass the finished numbers here. This tool never receives the requirement's text. codebugs stores the vector in its own local SQLite file and sends it nowhere. (Scope, stated precisely rather than loudly, because a promise wider than its check is worse than no promise. The route above is the claim. A test enforces two narrower things beside it: this package's own source imports none of the socket-opening modules that test lists, and it imports nothing at all from outside the package and the standard library without a declared, reasoned entry — so a network client nobody anticipated is still refused. Neither says "codebugs cannot reach the network": the MCP transport your client is talking over is a separate layer, and it is not covered.)

Because there is no embedding provider inside codebugs, nothing here knows the "right" dimensionality — it is whatever the first stored vector had. So the vector is refused if it is empty, contains a non-number, contains NaN or infinity, or has a different number of components than the vectors already stored in this tracker. Each of those would otherwise break reqs_search_similar: a mismatched width makes it unable to score the other rows, and a NaN makes a row drop out of every result with no error at all.

Once a tracker holds vectors of one width you cannot switch embedding model: there is no clear-and-re-embed operation in this package. reqs_embedding_stats reports which widths are actually present.

Args:

  • req_id: Requirement ID

  • embedding: Float vector. Any dimensionality, but the SAME one for every requirement in a given tracker.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
req_idYes
embeddingYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observedv0.2.2

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses local SQLite storage, that data is sent nowhere, the network-scope caveat, exact rejection conditions (empty, non-number, NaN, infinity, width mismatch), and the permanent width constraint per tracker.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with paragraphs and an Args section, and the core purpose is front-loaded. However, the privacy/scope passage is longer than needed for tool invocation and includes verbose philosophical framing. Several sentences add trust context rather than call-relevant guidance, making it less concise than it could be.

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?

The description is highly complete for a two-parameter tool: it explains when to call, how vectors are validated, what happens with mismatched widths, why those rules exist, and how to inspect current widths. Since an output schema is present, not explaining return values does not hurt completeness.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for 'embedding': float vector, arbitrary dimensionality, consistent width per tracker, and invalid value conditions. 'req_id' gets only minimal elaboration ('Requirement ID'), which is thin but 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?

The description clearly states the operation: 'Store an embedding vector for a requirement' and clarifies that the caller computes the embedding and passes finished numbers. It is specific about verb and resource, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling reqs_batch_embed, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear context on when to call it: after the caller has computed an embedding, and with strong warnings about consistent dimensionality and the inability to switch embedding models later. It points to reqs_embedding_stats for checking widths, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over reqs_batch_embed or other alternatives.

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

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/faxik/codebugs'

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