search_articlesSearch the published help center for articles about a topic. Use this before writing documentation to check whether an answer already exists, and to find the slug of an article you want to read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum hits, 1-50. Defaults to 8. | |
| query | Yes | What the customer would ask, in their words. | |
| productId | Yes | Product id from list_products. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and closed-world (openWorldHint=false), so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a real behavioral constraint beyond that: only *published* articles are searched, so drafts and unpublished content are excluded. Result format and pagination are left unstated.
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, zero waste, and the core action is front-loaded before the usage guidance. 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?
No output schema exists, but a read-only search tool does not need to explain return shapes in detail, and the description conveys the key outcome (you get articles and their slugs). Slightly thin on how results relate to list_articles versus read_article downstream.
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 only 3 parameters, so the schema already explains query, productId, and limit semantics. The description adds no parameter-level detail (no phrasing hints, no cross-reference behavior), so the baseline 3 applies.
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 specific verb and resource ('Search the published help center for articles about a topic') and implicitly separates itself from read_article by framing itself as the way to find a slug before reading. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling list_articles, leaving that pair ambiguous.
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?
Gives a concrete workflow condition: use before writing documentation to check whether an answer already exists, and to find a slug to read. That covers when to reach for it and gestures at read_article as the follow-up, though it states no exclusions or when-not conditions.
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.