Cactal

Search project context documents

websiteKnowledge_search

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find evidence across selected project context documents. Batch independent queries; use passages directly when sufficient. Results merge overlapping text and include source ranges and zero-based queryIndexes into queries. matched reports a hit; truncated means evidence may be omitted, clipped means partial lines, and unavailableResourceIds were not searched. Resolve missing evidence before concluding a fact is absent.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "websiteId": "<websiteId>",
      "resourceIds": "<resourceIds>",
      "queries": "<queries>"
    },
    "name": "websiteKnowledge_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`queries`	Yes	Independent case-insensitive literal terms matched within a line, not questions or regular expressions.
`websiteId`	Yes
`resourceIds`	Yes	Selected text resource ids from the project context index, in relevance order.
`contextLines`	No
`maxCharacters`	No	Shared passage character budget across all documents and queries.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial beyond-schema behavior: overlapping text is merged, results carry source ranges and zero-based queryIndexes, and matched/truncated/clipped/unavailableResourceIds are each defined. This is exactly the return-semantics context an agent needs for a tool with no output schema.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then telegraphic but information-dense statements about batching and result fields; nearly every clause carries signal. The result-field list is slightly run-on but no sentence is wasted.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of return semantics and does so well (matched, truncated, clipped, source ranges, unavailableResourceIds). Minor gaps remain around contextLines behavior and what 'evidence omitted' looks like in practice, keeping it from a 5.

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?

With 60% schema coverage, the description reinforces queries (batching, queryIndexes mapping) and resourceIds ('unavailableResourceIds were not searched'), but says nothing about contextLines or maxCharacters beyond their schema defaults. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the partial gap is only partly compensated.

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?

States a specific verb ('Find evidence') and scoped resource ('selected project context documents'), so an agent knows this is a scoped search over project knowledge. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like docs_search or websiteKnowledge_read, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'Batch independent queries; use passages directly when sufficient' and 'Resolve missing evidence before concluding a fact is absent' give concrete when/how guidance and a caution against premature conclusions. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., vs docs_search), so not a 5.

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

All Cactal tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?