Skip to main content
Glama

Data Boston

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Search Within a Source

search_within
Read-onlyIdempotent

Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record. Pass the text you already pulled (e.g. a SEC 10-K body, an article, a long tool result) plus a natural-language query; get back the top-N passages with character offsets and similarity scores. Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt — search_within saves context, returns only the passages that matter, and every passage carries an offset so the agent can verify a verbatim quote. Pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded: fetch with the gateway, ground over the relevant passages instead of the whole document. BGE-base-en embeddings + cosine over 500-char overlapping windows; cap is 200K chars (longer inputs are truncated and flagged).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesThe document text to search inside (max ~200K chars).
limitNoMax passages to return (1-20, default 5).
queryYesNatural-language query — what passages do you want? E.g. "supply-chain risk", "fiscal year 2024 revenue", "drug interactions with warfarin".

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds substantial behavioral details: uses BGE-base-en embeddings, cosine similarity, 500-char overlapping windows, 200K char limit with truncation flag, and that passages include offsets for verification.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Description is concise and well-structured. It front-loads the purpose and use case, then provides technical details and behavioral context. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explains return values (passages with offsets and similarity scores), embedding model, truncation behavior, and pairing advice. It fully addresses the tool's complexity and usage context.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. Description adds value by explaining the max char limit for 'text', giving natural-language examples for 'query', and clarifying default for 'limit'. This enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 the tool performs semantic search inside a fetched record, with specific examples like SEC 10-K. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded and explicitly addressing the use case of large texts to save context.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt' and explains benefits. It also mentions the truncation cap. Could be slightly improved by explicitly listing when not to use, but current guidance is clear and actionable.

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

All Data Boston 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools occupy adjacent territory: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded share the same router, ask_pipeworx_beta is currently an exact duplicate, and there are multiple polymarket-related tools. The descriptions are unusually explicit and cross-reference when to use which, which keeps this from scoring lower.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names use lowercase snake_case and group into recognizable families (boston_*, pipeworx_*, polymarket_*), giving the set a consistent feel. However, the set mixes verb_noun names, bare verbs like remember/forget, and adjective_noun phrases like recent_changes, so it is not a strict verb_noun pattern throughout.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools this exceeds the 25+ threshold and feels bloated for a server with the narrow name "Data Boston"—only three tools directly concern Boston data, while the rest cover general research, prediction markets, subscription management, memory, AI visibility, and npm auditing. Most tools have a purpose, but the overall surface is not well-scoped.

Completeness4/5

For the broad data-access purpose, coverage is strong: routing, grounded verification, entity profiles, comparisons, change tracking, entity resolution, discovery, monitoring, memory, and Boston datasets are all represented. Minor gaps exist, such as no subscription update operation, no explicit fetch-by-citation tool, and limited boston_recent coverage, but agents can work around them.

Resources