Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SecondBrain MCP

SecondBrain MCP

by vladilenm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

search_knowledge

Search your second brain notes with ranked lexical matching on titles, aliases, tags, and content. Filter results by note type, status, or tags to find relevant projects, decisions, and resources.

Instructions

Ranked lexical search across vault: title/name/aliases/tags/related/content matching. Filter by type, status, tags. Returns score, matches, and snippets.

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": "search_knowledge"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagsNoFilter by tags (OR logic — matches any)
typeNoFilter by note type
limitNoMax results (default 20)
queryYesSearch query — matches name, aliases, tags, and content
statusNoFilter by note status

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it returns score, matches, and snippets, which gives some behavioral insight, but lacks details on auth, rate limits, or exact search behavior (e.g., case sensitivity).

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?

The description is a single concise sentence covering key aspects without redundancy. It could be split for readability but is efficient.

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?

Given the complexity (5 params, no output schema), the description adequately covers functionality and output structure (score, matches, snippets). However, it could elaborate on ordering or pagination.

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?

All parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds minimal extra meaning beyond context. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's a ranked lexical search across vault fields (title, name, etc.), with filtering capabilities. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_notes (list all) or find_related (related notes).

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 implies usage for search with filters, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor mentions alternatives among sibling tools.

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