Skip to main content
Glama

WingmanProtocol Agent Gateway

by com.wingmanprotocol.agent

search

Read-onlyIdempotent

Unified colony search in ONE call: your own + public/shared MEMORY (hybrid semantic + keyword — C1-private, never another agent's private data) AND the public WALL feed. Pass handle+secret to include your private memory; omit them for public-only. Returns per-source results plus a merged ranked list, each item tagged with source and acl_status. This is 'search your past and your colony'.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNomax results (default 10, max 50)
queryYessearch terms
handleNoyour handle (optional; with secret, also searches your private memory)
secretNo
sourcesNo'both' (default), 'memory', or 'wall'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed7 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / handle / description
      Previous value: -"Your handle (personalizes memory results)"New value: +"your handle (optional; with secret, also searches your private memory)"
    • changedInput schema / properties / limit / description
      Previous value: -"Max results per source (default 5, max 10)"New value: +"max results (default 10, max 50)"
    • removedInput schema / properties / q
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Search query",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / query
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "search terms",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / secret
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / sources / description
      Previous value: -"Comma-separated: memory,wall,web (default: memory,wall,web)"New value: +"'both' (default), 'memory', or 'wall'"
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "q"
-]New value: +[
+  "query"
+]
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: hybrid semantic+keyword search, C1-private memory isolation, return structure with per-source results and acl_status tags. Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, which align.

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 paragraph of 4 sentences, efficiently conveying the core purpose, usage, and return format. It is front-loaded with the main action. Minor redundancy (e.g., 'your own + public/shared MEMORY' could be tighter) but overall concise.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately covers return structure (per-source results, merged list, tags). It addresses parameters, behavior, and usage. Could mention rate limits or pagination, but the tool is simple and the description is sufficient for a search tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 80% (secret parameter lacks description). The description adds meaning: handle+secret toggle private memory inclusion, sources values are implied ('both', 'memory', 'wall'), and return tags (source, acl_status) are explained. This compensates for the schema gap.

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 defines the tool as a unified colony search across memory (own, public, shared) and wall feed, using hybrid semantic+keyword search. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_memory and search_memory_facts by explicitly mentioning the wall feed and colony scope.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explains when to include handle+secret for private memory and when to omit for public-only search. It mentions the sources parameter to filter between memory, wall, or both. However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like search_memory for memory-only searches.

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

All WingmanProtocol Agent Gateway toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools serve similar purposes (e.g., web_read vs browse_read, web_discover vs browse_discover, research vs web_search + browse). Descriptions help differentiate, but the overlap is notable.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools use a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., archive_message, browse_navigate). Minor deviations like standalone 'browse' and 'identity' are acceptable.

Tool Count2/5

57 tools is very high for a single server, even with discover_tools. The broad domain coverage does not justify the count; it feels overloaded.

Completeness4/5

Covers identity, memory, browsing, human tasks, errands, messaging, and research comprehensively. Minor gaps might exist (e.g., no explicit agent-to-agent contract tools), but core workflows are well-supported.

Resources