Search DuckDuckGo and return formatted results.
Args:
query: The search query string
max_results: Maximum number of results to return (default: 10)
ctx: MCP context for logging
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| max_results | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the search provider (DuckDuckGo) and that results are formatted, which is useful, but says nothing about rate limits, result ranking/freshness, failure modes, or whether requests are cached or logged.
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 opening sentence is well front-loaded, but the remaining content is a verbatim docstring "Args:" block, including an undocumented `ctx` entry. It is short, yet part of its length is boilerplate rather than information that helps an agent invoke the tool.
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?
The tool is simple (one required param, output schema present so return format need not be described), and the description covers the provider and result formatting. However, for a network-dependent search tool it omits rate limits, error behavior, and any guidance on choosing max_results, leaving modest gaps.
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 0%, so the description does document both parameters, but its text ("The search query string", "Maximum number of results to return") merely restates the schema property titles, and the default of 10 is already in the schema. It also references a `ctx` parameter that does not exist in the input schema, which adds confusion rather than meaning.
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?
States a concrete verb (search) plus the specific resource (DuckDuckGo) and what it produces (formatted results), so an agent can tell instantly what it does. It only lacks sibling differentiation, but no sibling tools exist here.
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?
There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other search sources or fetch tools), nor any preconditions such as network access or query constraints. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and description.
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.