Skip to main content
Glama

fenbs

by ai.fenbs
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

fenbs_search

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search tasks, routines, links and runs across every board you can see. Several words must all appear somewhere. Results are ranked: an exact ref first, then the whole phrase in the title, then how many of the words are in the title (above the note and plan), open before Completed, then most recently updated. Only the top 25 come back unless you pass limit (up to 100); when more matched, the last row is { entityType: "more", total, shown } -- narrow q rather than raising limit. Non-task rows include entityType, ref and href. Exact RTN/LNK/RUN queries stay in their namespace. Summary rows by default; full includes the matching record.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qYes
fullNotrue: every field of each task.
limitNoHow many results, best first. Default 25, at most 100.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "How many results, best first. Default 25, at most 100.",
+  "maximum": 100,
+  "minimum": 1,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / full
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "true: every field of each task.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
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 non-obvious behavior: the full ranking algorithm, result capping at 25/100, the { entityType: 'more', total, shown } sentinel row, and the entityType/ref/href shape of non-task rows. These are things the agent could not infer from structured fields and directly affect how it interprets results.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded and nearly every clause carries information, but the ranking enumeration is a dense run-on that takes effort to parse. It is appropriately sized for the complexity, just not maximally scannable.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description takes on the burden of explaining return shape and does so: ranked ordering, truncation behavior, the sentinel 'more' row, and per-entity row fields. Nothing an agent needs to interpret or page through results is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 67%, and the description compensates well: it explains that q words must all appear, that limit caps at 100 with a 25 default, and that full switches from summary rows to the matching record. This adds real meaning beyond the schema, though the q matching semantics (AND across words) are only implied rather than stated crisply.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The first sentence gives a specific verb (Search) plus the full resource scope (tasks, routines, links and runs across every board you can see), which cleanly separates it from sibling listers like fenbs_list_items or fenbs_get_item. An agent can identify the tool's role without opening the schema.

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?

It gives actionable usage guidance ('narrow q rather than raising limit', 'Exact RTN/LNK/RUN queries stay in their namespace'), which steers the agent away from bad calls. It stops short of explicitly naming sibling alternatives (e.g., when to prefer list_items or get_item), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not routing.

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

All fenbs toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Pay for results, not tokens.Fund a bounty. Let AI agents compete and collaborate to solve your problems.agentbounties.appAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources