searchPerform a web search using Perplexity's API, which provides detailed and contextually relevant results with citations. By default, no time filtering is applied to search results.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | The search query to perform | |
| search_recency_filter | No | Filter search results by recency (options: month, week, day, hour). If not specified, no time filtering is applied. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It successfully mentions the external API dependency (Perplexity) and the citation feature, but omits safety properties (read-only status), error behavior, rate limits, or authentication requirements that would be critical for an external API call.
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 efficiently structured: the first defines the operation and its value proposition, the second clarifies default filtering behavior. No redundant or wasted language.
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 two-parameter tool without output schema or annotations, the description adequately covers the provider, result quality, and default filtering. It could be enhanced with safety or error-handling notes, but the core functionality is sufficiently 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, establishing a baseline of 3. The description reinforces the default behavior of the time filter but adds no additional semantic context about query formulation or parameter interactions beyond what the schema already provides.
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 identifies the action (perform web search), the provider (Perplexity API), and key output characteristics (detailed results with citations). It lacks sibling differentiation, but no siblings exist to compare against.
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 notes the default behavior regarding time filtering ('no time filtering is applied'), which hints at when to use the recency parameter. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or prerequisites.
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.