Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
anythingllm-mcp

anythingllm-mcp

by jbowensii
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

get_answer

Fetch an asynchronous AnythingLLM workspace answer by job ID; returns pending/done/error status and, when done, the answer and source document titles.

Instructions

Fetch an ask_workspace job by job_id: status pending|done|error, plus answer text and source document titles when done.

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": {
      "job_id": "<job_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_answer"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
job_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does notably well: it enumerates the status values (pending|done|error) and states that answer text and source titles are only populated when done. It omits permission needs and what happens to a job_id after completion, keeping it below a 5.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the highest-value information (what is fetched and what comes back) appears first.

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

Completeness4/5

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

No output schema exists, so the description is right to cover return states and conditional fields, which it does. For a one-parameter polling tool this is nearly sufficient; only error-handling and re-polling behavior are left unstated.

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 coverage is 0% with one required parameter, so the description must compensate, but it says only 'by job_id' — essentially restating the parameter name without format or origin details. The singular 'job_id' wording hints at one job per call, which is minor added value.

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?

Specific verb ('Fetch') plus resource ('an ask_workspace job') and it names the sibling tool that produces the job, so the agent can distinguish it from ask_workspace itself. The scope is unambiguous.

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?

Referencing 'ask_workspace job by job_id' implies the polling workflow (call after ask_workspace returns a job_id) and the sibling list confirms ask_workspace is the producer. It lacks explicit when/when-not phrasing or guidance on polling cadence, so it stops short of a 5.

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