list_synonymsList search synonyms (terms treated as equivalent by search). KnowledgeOwl API: GET /synonym.json. Returns { valid, page_stats, data:[...] }.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| _page | No | KnowledgeOwl pagination page number, 1-based. | |
| params | No | Additional documented query-string filters/operators to send verbatim (merged with the typed params above). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already marks this as safe, and the description aligns with a read-only GET. The description adds value by revealing the exact endpoint (GET /synonym.json) and the response envelope { valid, page_stats, data }, which helps the agent anticipate pagination and response structure. No contradictions with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then adds the endpoint and return shape. There is zero redundant text, and every clause earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it states the resource, the endpoint, and the response format. The schema covers the parameters, so nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with _page and params already documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-specific details, but per the baseline, the schema carries the semantic weight and the tool is simple enough that no additional param guidance is necessary.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'List search synonyms', and clarifies the domain meaning ('terms treated as equivalent by search'). It also names the exact API endpoint and return shape, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_glossary_terms and list_tags.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the description (listing search synonyms), but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives or when not to use it. Given the many sibling list tools, a sentence about exclusions or alternatives would strengthen the definition, but the core purpose is evident enough for basic selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting a specific resource (article, category, glossary, etc.) and action (create, get, list, update). There is no ambiguity or overlap between tool names.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: create_X, get_X, list_X, update_X. The exception 'knowledgeowl_request' is a utility escape hatch, clearly marked, and does not break the overall pattern.
At 24 tools, the set is slightly above the typical 3-15 range but still well-scoped for a knowledge base API covering many resources. Each tool serves a distinct purpose, and no tools are redundant.
The tool set lacks delete operations for all resources, and update operations are only available for articles and categories. Missing get tools for glossary terms, snippets, and other resources, though list tools are provided. This leaves significant gaps in lifecycle coverage.