search_glossary
Search the ecommerce glossary for definitions and related terms.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Default 10, max 25. | |
| query | Yes | Term, category, or definition search text. |
Search the ecommerce glossary for definitions and related terms.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Default 10, max 25. | |
| query | Yes | Term, category, or definition search text. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the tool returns definitions and related terms, but no further behavioral traits (e.g., auth, rate limits) are disclosed. The description adds some value beyond annotations.
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 is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose with no unnecessary words. It is well-structured and front-loaded.
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 simple search tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate. It could be more complete by explicitly stating the return format, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand its use.
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% with both parameters documented. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score 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?
The description clearly states the verb 'Search', the resource 'ecommerce glossary', and the outcome 'definitions and related terms'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_glossary_term which likely retrieves a specific term, and other search 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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_glossary_term or other search tools. No when-not-to-use or context is given.
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.