Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
musterd

musterd

Official
by musterd-io
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

team_insight_search

Search your team's saved insights by keyword to find what teammates already recorded before re-deriving it yourself.

Instructions

Search the team's saved insights by keyword — before re-deriving what a teammate may have recorded.

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": "team_insight_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNomax hits (default 20)
queryYeskeywords — every word must appear in the finding

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.7.1

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Search ... saved insights' implies a read-only, team-scoped lookup, but nothing is said about permissions, whether results span only the caller's team, ordering, or behavior on zero hits — meaningful gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

One short sentence with the action front-loaded and the motivating context appended; there is no filler or redundancy.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a two-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema, the description covers what the tool does and why, but with no output schema it says nothing about what a hit looks like or how many/which fields come back. Adequate for invocation, thin on results.

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 100%: the schema already explains 'query' (every word must appear) and 'limit' (max hits, default 20). The description's 'by keyword' restates rather than extends that, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('the team's saved insights') plus the matching mechanism ('by keyword'), which lets an agent distinguish it from the write-side sibling team_insight_save and from team_memory_read. It stops short of naming an alternative outright, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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 clause 'before re-deriving what a teammate may have recorded' gives a real usage trigger: consult this before duplicating prior work. However, it offers no explicit exclusions and never mentions how this differs from team_memory_read or when a broader memory read is preferable.

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