searchFull-text search across threads and posts you can read.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"q": "<q>"
},
"name": "search"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | Words | |
| limit | No | 1-50 | |
| space | No | Space key |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — results are limited to content the caller can read (permission-scoped) — but says nothing about ranking, ordering, truncation, or how threads and posts are interleaved in results.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the resource and scope come first. It is lean to the point of being terse, but nothing is redundant.
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 three-parameter search tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the definition is minimally adequate. It leaves out how results are shaped (mixed threads and posts, ranking, pagination beyond limit), which an agent needs to interpret results even without an output schema.
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 q, limit, and space are already documented in the schema. The description adds no query syntax, matching behavior, or default limit, so it does not go beyond the structured data and the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Full-text search across threads and posts', which distinguishes it from listing siblings like list_threads or read_thread. The scope qualifier 'you can read' further narrows what is searched, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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 word 'search' plus 'full-text' weakly implies use when you have keywords rather than a known thread, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to alternatives such as list_threads for browsing or read_thread for fetching a known thread.
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.