Skip to main content
Glama

trip2g

by io.github.trip2g

similar

Find related notes from a known note reference. Preferred: path (a search result's note_path field). Use this after opening a promising note when you need nearby context.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pidNoNon-negative integer (uint64) note id, copied verbatim from a search result's note_id field. Not a path, slug, or match_id — a value like ":" or "/hub/goethe.md" is a path, not a note id. Prefer path
hrefNoString note href, copied verbatim from a search result's href field
pathNoString note path, e.g. "concepts/maska-i-glubina.md" — copy verbatim from a search result's note_path field. The default, preferred way to reference a note
limitNoMax number of results (default 10)
note_idNoSame as pid: non-negative integer (uint64) note id, copied verbatim from a search result's note_id field. Not a path, slug, or match_id. Prefer path

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It states 'Find related notes' but does not clarify whether it is read-only, what 'related' means, or any side effects. More explicit safety or behavioral details are needed.

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?

Two concise sentences that immediately convey purpose and preferred usage. No filler or redundant information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 5 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks details about return format, behavior (e.g., ordering, pagination), and what constitutes a 'related note'. More context is needed for a complete understanding.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description adds only the preference for 'path' over other identifiers, which is minor added value. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it finds related notes from a known note reference, with a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like 'expand' or 'search', but the function is clear.

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?

It mentions prefering the 'path' parameter and suggests using it after opening a promising note for nearby context. This gives implied usage guidance but no explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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