Search pages by title using full-text search with fuzzy matching. Supports stemming (run/running/ran match) and typo tolerance (threshold 0.3).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 20, max 100) | |
| query | Yes | Search query string | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset (default 0) | |
| folder_id | No | Optional folder ID to search within a specific codebase | |
| include_shared | No | Include shared pages (default: true) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / include_sharedAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Include shared pages (default: true)",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It adds genuine behavioral detail — stemming and typo tolerance (threshold 0.3) — which explains matching semantics. However it never states that this is a read-only operation, whether results are ranked, or how relevance is computed.
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by matching behavior. No wasted words.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should say more about return values, ranking/ordering, and pagination semantics. It covers matching behavior but leaves the result shape and ordering unspecified.
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 all five parameters are documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description adds no per-parameter detail; its mention of 'threshold 0.3' is not even an actual parameter, so it contributes no mapping to the inputs.
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 ('Search') and resource ('pages by title') plus the matching mechanism (full-text, fuzzy). It's clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like search_blocks, list_pages, or find_linkable_pages.
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?
Gives no when/when-not guidance and names no alternative. An agent has no signal for choosing this over search_blocks or list_pages when hunting for a page.
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.