Full-text search across all Radixia blog posts (title, excerpt and body). Use this to find what Radixia has written about a topic, e.g. 'MCP', 'Bedrock', 'event driven'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results | |
| query | Yes | Search terms |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the search is full-text and covers all posts in specific fields, but it doesn't mention result ordering, pagination, read-only status, or other behavioral traits. The core behavior is clear, but deeper details are missing.
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 two sentences long, with the core purpose front-loaded and no redundant information. It is concise, efficient, and well-structured.
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 tool is simple, has no output schema, and the description covers purpose and usage. While it doesn't describe the return format, this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and the fact that the parameter behavior is well-documented.
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 schema already describes both parameters (query and limit) with 100% coverage. The description adds value by specifying which fields are searched (title, excerpt, body) and provides example queries, enriching the semantics of the query parameter.
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 what the tool does: 'Full-text search across all Radixia blog posts (title, excerpt and body).' It uses a specific verb (search) and resource (Radixia blog posts), and the mention of fields distinguishes it from siblings like list_posts and get_post.
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 says 'Use this to find what Radixia has written about a topic' and provides concrete examples, giving clear context for when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.
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 resource and action: company info, blog post retrieval, listing, searching, and conference agenda/session retrieval. Potential overlap between search and get tools is mitigated by explicit guidance in descriptions (e.g., get_conference_session tells you to use search first).
Most names follow a clear verb_noun pattern (get_, list_, search_), but 'about_radixia' breaks the pattern as a noun phrase. Overall still readable and consistent in snake_case.
8 tools is well-scoped for a blog + conference content server. Each tool serves a distinct purpose without redundancy or bloat.
The surface covers the read-only content domain comprehensively: blog posts (list, get, search), tags, conference agenda and transcripts (get, search), plus company info. No obvious missing operations for the apparent scope.
