[Local ops] Search ADP gbrain notes (Justin cache + local NF entities). No secrets. available:false off operator host.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max notes (default 6) | |
| query | No | Keywords (e.g. frigate mcp cash) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It adds 'No secrets' as a safety note and 'available:false off operator host' as an availability constraint, which are useful beyond the schema. However, it does not clarify the return format, pagination, or whether the operation is strictly read-only, leaving gaps in 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 sentence, front-loaded with the action 'Search ADP gbrain notes' followed by qualifiers. It avoids wordiness, though the phrase 'available:false off operator host' is somewhat cryptic and could be clearer, but it does not significantly waste space.
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?
With no output schema and 100% parameter schema coverage, the description provides adequate context for a simple search tool: it identifies the data sources, safety (no secrets), and availability. It does not specify the return structure, but given the simplicity of the tool and the clarity of the query/limit parameters, it is reasonably 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?
The schema covers 100% of the parameters (limit and query) with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any extra meaning about how to format the query or interpret the limit, relying on the schema's existing documentation.
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 begins with '[Local ops] Search ADP gbrain notes' which clearly states the verb (Search) and resource (ADP gbrain notes), distinguishing it from siblings like gbrain_get and gbrain_list. The addition 'Justin cache + local NF entities' further specifies the data sources, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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 implies usage through 'Search' and mentions 'Local ops', but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over the sibling tools gbrain_get or gbrain_list. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, so the guidance is only implicit.
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.
Most tools are clearly distinct, but there is overlap between local ops tools (gbrain_get/list/search, host_memory_get/set, forge_loop_status, list_mesh_snapshot, etc.) and public status/product tools (forge_status, popular_tools) which could confuse an agent. Descriptions help by tagging local ops, but the boundaries remain blurred.
All tool names use snake_case and mostly follow a verb_noun or noun_verb pattern (e.g., get_product, list_live_products, csv_to_markdown). A few names like now_iso and lorem_ipsum deviate from the verb-first style, but overall the naming is predictable and consistent.
With 40 tools, the server is overloaded for a coherent set. Many are simple utility functions that could be consolidated, and the mix of generic utilities, product APIs, and local ops adds unnecessary bulk, pushing the count well above the comfortable range.
The server lacks a clear domain, making it impossible to assess lifecycle coverage. While it offers many utilities, there is no coherent surface—missing common operations for any single category (e.g., no CRUD, no file handling) and many tools feel randomly assembled rather than forming a complete workflow.