Skip to main content
Glama

trip2g

by io.github.trip2g

search

Search notes by query. Returns snippets with a heading breadcrumb (title > section > subsection) that locates the approximate section, plus a precise toc_path per match. Each result carries note_path (string) and note_id (integer); each match carries match_id (string, form "p:c"). Drill-down workflow: 1) search to find the approximate section via the breadcrumb; 2) call note_html(path=<result.note_path>, toc_path=[...]) to read the matched section, or expand(path=<result.note_path>, toc_path=[...]) to navigate the note's structure level by level; 3) note_html(path=<result.note_path>, match_id=<match.match_id>) for a focused chunk window. Each match also carries section_url — a link straight to that heading, for citing the section rather than the whole note.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax number of results to return (default 6)
queryYesSearch query
detail_limitNoHow many results include full snippet matches; results beyond this are returned as lightweight previews (title, path, score) to save context (default 3)

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of transparency. It discloses exact return fields, the match_id format, the breadcrumb behavior, the lightweight preview behavior via schema context, and the coarse-to-fine matching workflow. This is unusually detailed and useful.

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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: it states the purpose, defines result/match structures, and provides a compact numbered drill-down workflow with code-style signatures. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description gives enough information about return shapes, field types, and exact next steps for the agent to invoke the tool and continue the workflow. It also names note_html and expand as the natural follow-up tools, making the surrounding context clear.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter descriptions are clear, so the baseline is 3. The description adds workflow context around returned fields but does not substantially extend the meaning of the input parameters themselves.

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 opens with 'Search notes by query'—a clear verb and resource. It then distinguishes search from the drill-down sibling tools by framing it as the discovery step that returns breadcrumbs, toc_path, and match identifiers.

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 an explicit numbered drill-down workflow, telling the agent when to use search, when to call note_html, when to use expand, and mentioning section_url as an alternative for citing. This gives strong guidance on how the tool fits relative to siblings.

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

All trip2g 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

The local/federated pairs are clearly separated by the federated_ prefix, and search, note_html, expand, and similar each have distinct roles. The main ambiguity is between instructions and wiki, which both sound like meta-instruction tools, and expand's documented leaf-reading overlap with note_html is a minor edge case.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names are uniformly snake_case and the federated_ prefix creates a strong, predictable pattern across local and remote counterparts. However, base names mix verbs (search, expand), nouns (instructions, wiki), a format-ish noun (note_html), and an adjective used as a command (similar), so the pattern is not fully verb_noun.

Tool Count5/5

11 tools is a well-scoped size for a read-oriented knowledge base with both local and federated access. Each tool maps to a clear workflow stage—search, read, navigate, find similar, or fetch instructions—without significant redundancy or bloat.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers search, reading, structural navigation, similar-note discovery, and federated equivalents, plus base instructions, which supports the core retrieval workflow end to end. The notable gap is the lack of a way to enumerate or browse all notes in a corpus without already having a query or path, though agents can work around this via search and instructions.

Resources