search_entitiesSearch people, places, events, institutions, works, and concepts extracted from an author corpus.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Optional entity type filter, e.g. person, place, event. | |
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | Entity name, alias, type, or concept to search for. | |
| author | No | Optional author slug or name. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| author | No | ||
| entities | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, making it clear this is a safe read operation. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the schema, such as pagination, fuzzy search behavior, or rate limits, but does not contradict annotations.
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 description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. No waste.
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 minimal but sufficient for a simple search tool given the output schema exists. However, it lacks details on search behavior (e.g., fuzzy matching, case sensitivity) and does not describe the output beyond entity types.
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?
The input schema covers 75% of parameters with descriptions, so the schema does most of the work. The description adds no additional meaning for parameters beyond hinting at the 'type' filter via the entity list. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a clear verb 'Search' and specifies the resource types (people, places, events, etc.) extracted from author corpus. It differentiates from sibling tools like search_corpus or search_letters by focusing on named entities, though it could be more explicit about what constitutes an entity.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as get_entity for a single entity or search_corpus for broader text search. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context for use.
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.