Skip to main content
Glama
yyy188
by yyy188

search_jama_semantics

Retrieve relevant items from Jama projects by running natural-language queries with hybrid semantic and keyword search, using multi-query expansion and RRF fusion for accurate results.

Instructions

Semantic search over an initialized Jama project using high-precision RAG.

This is the DEFAULT tool for any non-precise question. It fuses keyword
(FTS5/BM25), vector (sqlite-vec cosine) and RRF in one call — so "like",
"keyword" and "semantic" queries are all best answered here. Prefer it over
native metadata unless the user gives an exact document key / status / item id.

Pipeline: client Multi-Query expansion -> hybrid recall (sqlite-vec +
FTS5) -> RRF fusion (with item-level dedup) -> top_k results. Ranking is
pure RRF by default: the cross-encoder reranker is DISABLED
(``RERANKER_ENABLED=0``) because benchmarking on the Lyra corpus showed it
HURT precision (Recall@50 73.3% RRF-only vs Recall@5 33.3% with rerank).
The reranker code path remains available for re-enablement.

Args:
    project_id: numeric string Jama project id (must be initialized first).
    query: the ORIGINAL natural-language search query, verbatim. It is
           always kept as the primary recall/rerank reference, so even
           when `sub_queries` is supplied you MUST pass the original user
           query here too.
    sub_queries: RECOMMENDED. Rewrite `query` into 3-5 diverse search
                 sub-queries capturing different semantic angles
                 (synonyms, broader/narrower scope, related concepts) to
                 maximize recall for RRF fusion. Pass as a JSON array of
                 strings. The server normalizes them (forces `query` to the
                 front, de-duplicates, caps at 5). If omitted, the server
                 falls back to deterministic lexical variants.
                 Example for query "how does login timeout work":
                   ["login session expiration",
                    "authentication timeout policy",
                    "user inactivity logout"]
    item_type: optional Jama item-type id to filter (e.g. "89011" for Test
               Cases, "89009" for Requirements). Pass None for all.
    top_k: final results to return (default 50). The BEIR sweep showed
           top_k=50 + candidate_k=100 is the optimal combination (highest
           Recall@50 = 73.3%). Range 1-50; must be <= candidate_k.
    candidate_k: candidate pool size after RRF fusion + item dedup
                 (default 100). A larger pool improves recall (vector+FTS
                 recall is capped by this): measured vecR@25=7%, @50=13%,
                 @100=21%, @200=34%. Note: candidate_k=200 DILUTES RRF
                 rankings and actually lowers Recall@50 to 64.4%, so 100
                 is the measured sweet spot. Range 1-500; must be >= top_k.
    modified_after: optional ISO-8601 lower bound on item modified date
                    (inclusive). Naive timestamps are assumed UTC.
                    e.g. "2024-01-01" or "2024-06-01T00:00:00Z".
    modified_before: optional ISO-8601 upper bound on item modified date
                     (inclusive). Naive timestamps are assumed UTC.

Returns:
    {"project_id","query","sub_queries_used","results":
    [{document_key,name,item_type_name,section,modified_date,text,
    score,strategy}, ...]}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYes
top_kNo
item_typeNo
project_idYes
candidate_kNo
sub_queriesNo
modified_afterNo
modified_beforeNo
Behavior5/5

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

Despite no annotations, the description details the full pipeline (Multi-Query expansion, hybrid recall, RRF fusion, item-level dedup, top_k results), explains why the reranker is disabled (benchmarking data), and covers parameter behavior, defaults, and constraints. This provides rich behavioral context.

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 well-structured with a summary, usage context, pipeline explanation, detailed Args, and return format. It is front-loaded with key information. However, it includes some extraneous detail (e.g., repeated benchmarking numbers) that could be trimmed without losing essential meaning.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, RAG pipeline, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It explains the return format, optimal settings, date handling, and provides an example for sub_queries. There are no significant gaps for an agent to 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 description includes a comprehensive Args section that explains every parameter in detail, including purpose, recommendations, examples (e.g., sub_queries), constraints (e.g., top_k ≤ candidate_k), and relationships between parameters. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 performs semantic search using high-precision RAG over an initialized Jama project. It explicitly distinguishes itself from native metadata queries ('Prefer it over native metadata unless the user gives an exact document key / status / item id'), making its purpose and differentiation from siblings unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: it is the default tool for non-precise questions and should be preferred over native metadata unless the user has an exact identifier. It also explains the fusion strategy and recommends using sub_queries.

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/yyy188/jama-mcp-server'

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