Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
fixgraph

fixgraph

by jawdat6
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

fixgraph_search

Search a community-verified database of over 25,000 real-world fixes. Returns matching issues with trust scores and fix counts to resolve software errors, vehicle problems, home system issues, and appliance faults.

Instructions

Search FixGraph for engineering fixes. Returns matching issues with trust scores and fix counts.

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": "fixgraph_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoNumber of results (1–20, default 5)
queryYesError message, technology, or symptom to search for
categoryNoOptional category filter (e.g. "databases", "networking")

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added
  2. Removedv1.0.1
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only mentions returning data but does not disclose auth requirements, rate limits, or whether it is read-only. This is insufficient for a search tool.

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 sentence that is clear and front-loaded. Every word is necessary and earns its place.

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?

The complexity is moderate (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), but the description is minimal. It lacks details on return format, sorting, pagination, or error 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema for parameters; it only mentions output characteristics (trust scores and fix counts).

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 FixGraph for engineering fixes and returns specific data (trust scores and fix counts). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fixgraph_get_fixes and fixgraph_submit_fix by focusing on search.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose implies search, there is no guidance on exclusions or when to choose a sibling tool.

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