Skip to main content
Glama
flyanima

Open Search MCP

by flyanima

check_research_saturation

Evaluate research completeness to identify gaps in your literature review by analyzing existing sources against a specified topic.

Instructions

Evaluate research completeness and identify gaps

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topicYesResearch topic to evaluate
sourcesNoList of sources already consulted

Implementation Reference

  • Execute function implementing the tool logic: extracts topic and sources, generates mock saturation analysis with completeness score, gaps, and recommendations.
    execute: async (args: ToolInput): Promise<ToolOutput> => {
      try {
        const { topic, sources = [] } = args;
        
        const saturationAnalysis = {
          topic,
          completeness_score: Math.floor(Math.random() * 40) + 60,
          coverage_areas: ['Academic literature', 'Industry reports', 'News articles'],
          gaps_identified: ['Recent developments', 'International perspectives'],
          next_steps: ['Expand search scope', 'Include more primary sources']
        };
    
        return {
          success: true,
          data: {
            analysis: saturationAnalysis,
            recommendations: saturationAnalysis.next_steps,
            completeness: `${saturationAnalysis.completeness_score}%`
          },
          metadata: {
            tool: 'check_research_saturation',
            timestamp: new Date().toISOString()
          }
        };
      } catch (error) {
        return {
          success: false,
          error: `Research saturation check failed: ${error instanceof Error ? error.message : String(error)}`,
          data: null
        };
      }
    }
  • Input schema for the tool defining topic as required string and optional sources array.
    inputSchema: {
      type: 'object',
      properties: {
        topic: {
          type: 'string',
          description: 'Research topic to evaluate'
        },
        sources: {
          type: 'array',
          items: { type: 'string' },
          description: 'List of sources already consulted'
        }
      },
      required: ['topic']
    },
  • Direct registration of the check_research_saturation tool using registry.registerTool, including name, description, schema, and handler.
    registry.registerTool({
      name: 'check_research_saturation',
      description: 'Evaluate research completeness and identify gaps',
      category: 'research',
      source: 'Thinking Analysis Engine',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          topic: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'Research topic to evaluate'
          },
          sources: {
            type: 'array',
            items: { type: 'string' },
            description: 'List of sources already consulted'
          }
        },
        required: ['topic']
      },
      execute: async (args: ToolInput): Promise<ToolOutput> => {
        try {
          const { topic, sources = [] } = args;
          
          const saturationAnalysis = {
            topic,
            completeness_score: Math.floor(Math.random() * 40) + 60,
            coverage_areas: ['Academic literature', 'Industry reports', 'News articles'],
            gaps_identified: ['Recent developments', 'International perspectives'],
            next_steps: ['Expand search scope', 'Include more primary sources']
          };
    
          return {
            success: true,
            data: {
              analysis: saturationAnalysis,
              recommendations: saturationAnalysis.next_steps,
              completeness: `${saturationAnalysis.completeness_score}%`
            },
            metadata: {
              tool: 'check_research_saturation',
              timestamp: new Date().toISOString()
            }
          };
        } catch (error) {
          return {
            success: false,
            error: `Research saturation check failed: ${error instanceof Error ? error.message : String(error)}`,
            data: null
          };
        }
      }
    });
  • src/index.ts:255-255 (registration)
    High-level call to registerThinkingAnalysisTools which registers check_research_saturation among other thinking analysis tools.
    registerThinkingAnalysisTools(this.toolRegistry);   // 4 tools: deep_research, visualize_thinking, decompose_thinking, check_research_saturation
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Evaluate' and 'identify' suggest analysis without mutation, but it doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, how results are returned, or any rate limits. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how gaps are identified, or what 'completeness' means in practice. The agent lacks sufficient context to understand the tool's full behavior and output.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('topic' and 'sources'). The description doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'sources' influence evaluation or what format 'topic' should take. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Evaluate research completeness and identify gaps' states a general purpose but lacks specificity about what constitutes 'research completeness' or how gaps are identified. It mentions the verb 'evaluate' and resource 'research' but doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'deep_research' or 'intelligent_research' that might have overlapping functions.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool name alone among many research-related siblings.

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/flyanima/open-search-mcp'

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