Cluby MCP

Test the article search

test_article_search

Make one signed call to the POS connection's article search (the venue's categories by default, or what query, categoryId, ids and kind ask for) and report what happened: the URL called, the provider's HTTP status and time, the reason when it failed, and the answer when it matched the contract. The outcome is kept on the connection as articleSearch. Nothing changes on the provider's side. Requires the admin role.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "test_article_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ids`	No
`kind`	No
`limit`	No
`orgId`	No	Organization public id, the `id` field from list_orgs. Omit it when the API key reaches exactly one organization.
`query`	No	A case-insensitive substring of the name. Not with `ids`.
`venueId`	No	The venue whose catalogue to search: its `id` from `GET /v2/orgs/my`, or the scan event's `venueId`.
`categoryId`	No	Articles only: limit to this category.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With only destructiveHint=false in annotations, the description adds real value: it confirms 'nothing changes on the provider's side,' discloses the outcome is persisted on the connection as articleSearch, requires the admin role, and enumerates what is reported on success/failure. This goes well beyond the single annotation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a single dense sentence plus a short side-effect and auth sentence, all front-loaded with the core action and reporting behavior. Slightly verbose but every clause (default, report contents, persistence, role) carries information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 7-param tool with no output schema, the description usefully explains the return payload (URL, status, time, failure reason, matched answer) and side effects. It is close to complete; remaining gaps are the limit param and explicit differentiation from search_pos_articles.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

At 57% schema coverage, the description compensates by naming query, categoryId, ids and kind and by giving the default behavior (venue's categories when none specified). This adds meaning for the undocumented ids/kind/limit params, though limit is still unexplained anywhere.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'make one signed call to the POS connection's article search' and 'report what happened.' The diagnostic intent is clear from the reporting details (URL, status, time, reason, answer). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling search_pos_articles, so the agent must infer this is the test/diagnostic variant rather than the real search.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied by the word 'test' and the 'report what happened' framing, plus the default that it searches the venue's categories. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus search_pos_articles, or when-not to use it. The admin-role prerequisite is stated, which is a useful gating hint but not usage guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Cluby MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?