search_datavilleQuery one of Dataville’s data sources (see list_dataville_sources for valid names) with a keyword string. Use it for facts that should come from a real source — company filings, papers, package metadata, nutrition, census figures — rather than from memory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source | Yes | Data source name, e.g. 'wikipedia', 'arxiv', 'edgar' | |
| keywords | Yes | Search keywords or identifier for the query |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it says nothing about result format, result count, pagination, latency, or error behavior for an unknown source name. The only behavioral hint is that source must be a valid name from list_dataville_sources, which is thin for a search tool.
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 sentences, zero waste: the first defines the operation and its inputs, the second defines when to reach for it. Front-loaded and appropriately sized.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should ideally say a little about what a query returns or how source failures surface. For a two-parameter search it is adequate for tool selection but leaves return-shape gaps.
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 coverage is 100% with both parameters documented, so the schema already carries the parameter semantics and the baseline is 3. The phrase 'keyword string' adds no syntax, format, or matching-behavior detail beyond the schema.
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 concrete verb and resource ('Query one of Dataville's data sources ... with a keyword string') and explicitly points at the sibling tool that supplies valid source names. An agent can distinguish this from list_dataville_sources without opening either schema.
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 a clear when-to-use rule: prefer this over memory for verifiable facts like filings, papers, package metadata, nutrition, and census figures. It lacks explicit when-not / failure conditions, but the positive routing guidance is strong for a tool with only one sibling.
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.