Skip to main content
Glama

query_knowledge

Retrieve relevant semiconductor knowledge by searching the Neo4j knowledge graph and memory with natural language queries, returning concepts, hypotheses, and decisions.

Instructions

Query the knowledge graph and memory for relevant information.

    Searches both the Neo4j knowledge graph and the memory system.

    Args:
        query: Natural language query (e.g., "MOSFET amplifier gain").

    Returns:
        JSON envelope:
          context          — human-readable markdown of concepts/edges/memories
          concepts         — [{id, name, confidence, layer, domain, cite}] —
                             pass these ids to
                             record_hypothesis(related_concepts=[...]),
                             record_decision, reinforce_concept, etc.
                             Each concept carries cite.level — 'chunk' claims can
                             be verified verbatim via get_evidence(chunk_id);
                             when you use a 'derived' item in an answer, label
                             that part of your answer as derived/unverified.
          open_hypotheses  — [{id, statement, status, confidence}] — ids usable
                             in record_bench_result(tests_hypothesis=...) and
                             record_decision(motivated_by=[...])
          active_decisions — [{id, choice, status}]
    

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the JSON envelope structure and provides critical caveats: 'when you use a derived item in an answer, label that part of your answer as derived/unverified' and 'chunk claims can be verified verbatim via get_evidence.' This adds meaningful behavioral context about data provenance and reliability beyond a simple query action.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by organized Args/Returns sections. The description is lengthy but every element serves a purpose, such as explaining how to pass concept IDs to record_hypothesis and other tools. It is efficient for the complexity it covers.

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?

For a tool with complex output (concepts, open_hypotheses, active_decisions), the description thoroughly explains the return structure and connects it to downstream tools. It lacks error-condition or failure-mode information, but given the rich output schema context, it is largely complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The only parameter 'query' is described as 'Natural language query' with a concrete example ('MOSFET amplifier gain'). Since the input schema provides only a title and type with 0% description coverage, the description fully compensates by specifying the expected format and giving a clear usage example.

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 states it 'Query the knowledge graph and memory for relevant information' and explicitly says 'Searches both the Neo4j knowledge graph and the memory system.' This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like recall_memory (memory only) and get_evidence (evidence chunks).

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 when to use the tool by mentioning both knowledge graph and memory and returning hypotheses/decisions, suggesting it is the general retrieval entrypoint. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer the boundary with recall_memory or answer_question.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/xz0831/openclaw-brain'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server