Full-text search across all Finally Offline articles. Find specific topics, people, events, or trends in the archive.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of results to return | |
| query | Yes | Search query (e.g. 'NBA draft', 'streetwear', 'Drake') | |
| agent_token | No | Credential from register_agent. Alternative to Authorization: Bearer. Never put it in URLs. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / agent_tokenAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Credential from register_agent. Alternative to Authorization: Bearer. Never put it in URLs.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds no behavioral details beyond that, such as result format, pagination, or authentication behavior. It does not contradict the annotations, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 with no filler. The scope is front-loaded and the examples in the second sentence add useful context without redundancy.
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 search tool with well-documented parameters and safety annotations, the description is largely complete. It could mention result format or ordering, but an agent can confidently select and invoke the tool based on what is provided.
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 the parameters are already fully documented. The description reinforces the 'query' use case with examples but adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Full-text search across all Finally Offline articles.' It also lists concrete search intents (topics, people, events, trends), making the tool's purpose unmistakable and clearly distinct from the trending/news sibling 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?
It provides clear usage context: use this when you need to find specific content anywhere in the archive. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the intended scenario is clearly communicated.
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.