Skip to main content
Glama

blobpedia

by io.github.UnityNodes

search

Keyword/full-text search over the Celestia knowledge base (CIPs, Celestia/rollup/node docs, forum, whitepapers, blog, YouTube transcripts, celestiaorg GitHub issues/PRs, releases and Discussions). Celestia-specific — do NOT use for other blockchains (use the Ethereum or other-chain docs tool), the general web (use the web-search tool), other knowledge bases (use the dedicated RAG tool), or local files. Use this for exact-term or name lookups; use semantic_search for conceptual how-does-X-work questions, and get_doc to read a full page once you have its id.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNoall
limitNo
queryYesSearch query

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It indicates the tool does exact-term/full-text search (not semantic), which is helpful. However, lacks details on pagination, result format, or potential side effects. Still, the behavior is clear enough for safe selection.

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?

Description is reasonably concise given the complexity. It front-loads the main purpose and then provides usage guidance. Two sentences dedicated to what not to use, which is valuable but could be slightly tighter.

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 (many sources, many sibling tools), the description is highly complete. It explains scope, alternatives, and when to use other tools. No output schema, but search results are typically self-explanatory.

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 only 33% (only query described). Description adds context by listing query sources implicitly but does not detail the 'type' enum or 'limit' parameter. Partially compensates for low coverage but not fully.

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 keyword/full-text search over a specific knowledge base, listing sources. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying exact-term vs semantic search (semantic_search) and page retrieval (get_doc).

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?

Explicitly provides when-not-to-use guidance: not for other blockchains, general web, other knowledge bases, or local files. Also directs to alternatives like semantic_search for conceptual questions and get_doc for full page reading.

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

All blobpedia 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target clearly distinct content types and actions, and descriptions carefully carve out boundaries (e.g. get_network_state vs get_network_stats, get_discussion vs get_github_discussion). However, the overlapping get_/find_/search_ families plus the very similar network_state/network_stats names leave some edge cases where an agent could select the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

The dominant convention is verb_noun (find_*, get_*, list_*, search_*), and get/list/find roughly map to id-based retrieval, browsing, and discovery. Deviations like learning_path, ecosystem_dependency_graph, and semantic_search break the pattern, and the get_ vs find_ vs search_ boundaries are not perfectly predictable.

Tool Count2/5

43 tools is on the high side for a single MCP server; even though the Celestia knowledge domain is broad, the surface is heavy and will increase selection cost. Most tools are individually useful, but the set would benefit from consolidation, e.g. merging release tools or search variants.

Completeness4/5

The server covers an unusually broad range of content types—CIPs, docs, forum, GitHub issues/discussions, releases, videos, whitepapers, ecosystem, and network state—with list/get/search access for most. Minor gaps remain, such as no dedicated blog retrieval and get_issue_status only returning status rather than full issue body, but core knowledge workflows have no dead ends.

Resources