Search your stock_item rows by text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | Search text (substring match over the entity's text properties; %/_ are literal). | |
| limit | No | Page size 1-200. Omit BOTH limit and cursor for the legacy bare-array first page of 200; pass either to get { items, next_cursor, limit } instead. | |
| cursor | No | Opaque page cursor — pass a previous response's next_cursor verbatim. null next_cursor means no further pages. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond 'search by text'—it does not mention pagination behavior, return format, or any other operational trait.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though its brevity borders on under-specification given the absence of usage guidance.
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 read-only search tool with complete schema documentation and full annotations, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It could be improved by disambiguating from stock_item_list/read, but no critical invocation information is missing.
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 100%, so the schema fully documents q, limit, and cursor, including substring matching and pagination semantics. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score of 3 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 names a specific verb (search), resource (stock_item rows), and mechanism (by text), so the tool's function is clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like stock_item_list or stock_item_read, which prevents a top score.
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 that this tool is used for text-based search, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus stock_item_list, stock_item_read, or other retrieval siblings. No exclusions or alternatives are named.
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.