Search mall stores across the whole directory (store, brand, mall, city, operator, category).
Free-text, diacritic-insensitive, AND-of-tokens. 'zara bucuresti' finds
Zara stores in Bucharest-area malls; 'samsung' finds stores/brands named
Samsung. Returns full store records (20 fields).
Args:
query: Free-text search terms.
max_results: Maximum number of stores to return (1-100).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| max_results | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses important search behavior: free-text matching, diacritic insensitivity, AND-of-tokens semantics, and a 20-field store record return. It does not explicitly state the operation is read-only, but the 'search' framing makes that a reasonable inference.
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 opens with a precise purpose, continues with concrete behavioral details and examples, and ends with result shape and args. Every sentence adds value, and there is no duplication of schema information.
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 two-parameter search tool with no output schema, this description covers the search scope, matching behavior, result shape, and parameter semantics. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly; missing pagination or no-results behavior are minor gaps rather than critical omissions.
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 no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description's Args section compensates by explaining query as free-text search terms and max_results as a limit with a 1-100 range. This adds real meaning beyond the schema, though it does not cover edge cases like empty or malformed queries.
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 uses a specific verb ('Search'), a clear resource ('mall stores'), and a distinctive scope ('across the whole directory' including store, brand, mall, city, operator, category). The free-text examples make the operation unambiguous and distinguish it from the filtered sibling tools.
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 frames this as the directory-wide free-text search tool, which clearly signals when it applies versus the more targeted siblings like stores_by_category or stores_by_city. It does not explicitly say 'use X when Y', but the 'whole directory' contrast and examples give solid contextual guidance.
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.