tela

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Knowledge gaps

knowledge_gaps

Read-only

Find questions your documentation could not answer and turn them into a content roadmap. Filter by space or time window to decide which pages to write next.

Instructions

The most-asked "ask your docs" questions the corpus could NOT answer — a content roadmap: write these pages next. Covers your own asks plus asks in spaces you're a member of. Optional space_id and since_days window.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	max gaps (default 50)
`space_id`	No	optional space id to restrict the gaps to
`since_days`	No	only count asks in the last N days (0 = all time)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`gaps`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv0.11.0Oct 15, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / space_id

Added value: +{
+  "description": "optional space id to restrict the gaps to",
+  "type": [
+    "null",
+    "integer"
+  ]
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / gaps / items / properties / best_score
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "number"
+}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / gaps / items / properties / grounded
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "integer"
+}
```

changedOutput schema / properties / gaps / items / required

Previous value: -[
-  "question",
-  "asks",
-  "answered",
-  "avg_hits",
-  "last_asked"
-]New value: +[
+  "question",
+  "asks",
+  "answered",
+  "grounded",
+  "avg_hits",
+  "best_score",
+  "last_asked"
+]

First observedv0.1.0Jul 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/destructive=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the data is unanswered questions, the scope is constrained to the caller's own asks plus asks in spaces they belong to, implying a permission-bounded result set. No rate limit or pagination detail, but the scope note is valuable.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose then the scoping rule. The em dash aside ('a content roadmap: write these pages next') earns its place by conveying intended use, though the wording is slightly dense and mixes purpose with usage hint.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, and annotations cover the safety profile; all three params are schema-documented. The description supplies the conceptual scope and ownership boundary, leaving only minor gaps like result ordering or practical limits for a tool of this complexity.

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%, so the schema already documents limit, space_id and since_days. The description only re-touches space_id and the since_days window and omits 'limit' entirely, adding no syntax or semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Names a specific resource ('the most-asked ask-your-docs questions the corpus could NOT answer') and frames it as a content roadmap, which is a distinct, non-obvious resource in a sibling set dominated by page/search/mutation tools. An agent can tell this is an analytics-style list of unanswered questions rather than a search or page tool.

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 phrase 'write these pages next' implies the intended follow-up action, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, no prerequisite stated, and no alternative sibling (e.g. search, suggest_links, find_overlaps) is named or excluded. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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