Skip to main content
Glama
permanu

SuperSkill

by permanu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

graph_cross_project

Read-only

Search the current project's vault for a query; cross-project searches are denied to keep results scoped to this workspace.

Instructions

Search the current project's vault only. Cross-project search is denied.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax results (default 20, max 1000)
queryYesSearch query
workspace_pathNoAbsolute thread workspace directory; must map to this project. Omit only when the server cwd is the thread workspace.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv0.15.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / limit / description
      Previous value: -"Max results (default 20)"New value: +"Max results (default 20, max 1000)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / maximum
      Added value: +1000
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / minimum
      Added value: +1
    • changedInput schema / properties / limit / type
      Previous value: -"number"New value: +"integer"
    • addedInput schema / properties / workspace_path
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Absolute thread workspace directory; must map to this project. Omit only when the server cwd is the thread workspace.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv0.6.1

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations cover the read-only safety profile. The description adds the meaningful behavioral constraint that scope is limited to the current project and cross-project access fails, which is useful beyond the annotation. However it says nothing about failure modes (does denial raise an error?), result shape, or pagination.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the scope restriction is front-loaded before the denial clause. Efficient, though the brevity is arguably under-specification rather than tight editing.

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 three-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers the critical scope rule but omits error behavior on denial and any relation to the graph_related/graph_traverse siblings. Minimum viable but with clear gaps.

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%, with limit, query, and workspace_path all documented including defaults, bounds, and the cwd caveat. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a precise resource scope (the current project's vault only), and immediately negates the cross-project behavior implied by the name. The name 'graph_cross_project' is misleading against the actual restriction, but the description corrects it cleanly. No explicit differentiation from graph_related or graph_traverse.

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?

'Cross-project search is denied' conveys a boundary condition, but only implicitly tells the agent when this tool applies. It never names graph_related or graph_traverse as alternatives or explains when to prefer this search over them, so usage is left to inference.

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