search_blog_articlesSearch published Root Data blog articles by title, slug, excerpt, category, tag, or SEO summary. Supports DSO-only, practice-only, both-audience, or all articles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| audience | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only reveals that 'published' articles are searched and audience filtering is supported, but does not explain return format, pagination, sorting, or behavior with empty queries. This is minimal transparency.
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 concise sentence with no redundant wording. It efficiently packs the searchable fields and audience options without fluff.
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?
For a simple search tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core search scope and audience filter. However, it lacks details about result format, edge cases (e.g., empty query), and any dependencies or prerequisites, making it not fully complete.
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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains the 'query' parameter by listing searchable fields and defines the audience enum values (DSO-only, practice-only, both, all). However, 'limit' is not described, leaving some semantic gap. It partially compensates for the low coverage.
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 the tool searches published Root Data blog articles, listing specific searchable fields (title, slug, excerpt, category, tag, SEO summary). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that search DSOs/practices, ensuring no ambiguity.
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 provides clear context that this tool is for searching blog articles, which implicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools for other data types. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or specify when not to use this tool, so it falls short of the highest bar.
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 and resource type: search, get, compare, list, FAQ, and blog search are clearly separated, and entity types (DSO vs practice vs blog vs FAQ) are explicit. No two tools have overlapping purposes that could cause misselection.
Seven of eight tools follow the verb_noun pattern (compare_dsos, get_dso_profile, search_practices, etc.), while root_data_faq deviates as a noun phrase with no leading verb. This is a minor inconsistency in an otherwise predictable scheme.
With 8 tools, the set is well-scoped for a public directory server. Each tool earns its place, covering search, retrieval, comparison, ranking, and informational queries without redundancy or bloat.
For a read-only public directory, the surface is complete: both DSOs and practices have search and get operations, plus compare and list ranking for DSOs, and FAQ and blog search fill informational gaps. No critical operations are missing; optional search parameters ensure broad coverage.