Search the ChangeGamer corpus by keyword. Ranks resources by relevance across title, description, tags, category, and body, and returns metadata plus HTML/Markdown/JSON URLs (no body content). Use this to find resources before fetching them with get_resource.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of results (default 10). | |
| query | Yes | Search keywords, e.g. "retrieval augmented generation" or "mcp auth" |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses behavioral traits: it ranks by relevance across multiple fields, returns metadata and URLs, and explicitly states 'no body content.' It does not mention auth needs or rate limits, but for a read-only search tool, these are less critical.
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?
Two sentences, each earning its place: first defines purpose and behavior, second gives usage advice. No wasted words.
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 description is adequate but lacks detail on the return format. Without an output schema, the agent would benefit from knowing the structure of results (e.g., fields like id, title, score, URLs). The mention of 'metadata plus HTML/Markdown/JSON URLs' is vague.
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 descriptions cover both parameters (query and limit). The description adds value by specifying which fields are searched (title, description, tags, category, body) and that results are ranked by relevance, which is not in the schema.
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 clearly states it searches the ChangeGamer corpus by keyword, ranks by relevance across title, description, tags, category, and body, and returns metadata plus URLs but no body. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_resource which fetches full resources.
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?
The description explicitly says 'Use this to find resources before fetching them with get_resource,' providing clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not mention alternatives like list_resources or cases where this tool should not be used.
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 targets a distinct action: checking access, fetching corpus (free vs full), pricing, payment, listing, searching, stats, and single resource retrieval. No significant overlap.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., check_access, get_corpus, list_resources). Verbs are uniform and descriptive.
With 10 tools, the set is well-scoped for a resource access and management API. Each tool serves a clear purpose without redundancy or excessive number.
The toolset covers core operations: access verification, corpus retrieval (free and premium), pricing, payment info, resource listing, search, and stats. Missing write operations (e.g., purchase), but acceptable for a read-focused server.