searchSearch your Floot projects and their code. Returns result ids usable with fetch. For richer options, list_projects enumerates projects and search_code does code-level search.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds genuine value beyond the annotations by disclosing the return behavior ('Returns result ids usable with fetch'), which tells the agent the output can be chained into fetch. This is useful behavioral context not present in the structured fields.
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?
Three tight sentences with zero filler. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, the output coupling in the second, and the alternative routing in the third. Every sentence carries weight.
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 low-complexity single-parameter read-only tool, the definition covers purpose, target scope, output format, and sibling routing. With readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations supplying the safety profile, little is missing. Only minor gaps like pagination or result limits remain, which are not critical for a search tool of this shape.
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 0%, so the description bears the full burden of explaining the query parameter. It implies query is free-form search text by saying the search covers projects and their code, but it adds no detail on format, syntax, or matching behavior. This is thin compensation for an undocumented parameter.
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'), a concrete resource ('your Floot projects and their code'), and explicitly names the sibling tools it is not (list_projects, search_code). An agent can distinguish it from search_code and list_projects at a glance, which is the core requirement for purpose clarity.
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?
Names the alternatives explicitly ('list_projects enumerates projects and search_code does code-level search') and signals when they are the better choice ('For richer options'). It lacks a crisp positive 'use this when...' condition, but the alternative-routing guidance is clear and useful.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct, but there is some overlap among file-modifying tools (edit_file, write_file, apply_patch) and between run_code_in_vm and run_code_in_browser. Detailed descriptions and clearly scoped use cases help agents select correctly.
Most tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (create_project, list_files, execute_sql), but a few deviate (apply_patch, card_upload_asset, run_code_in_vm). Overall readable and predictable, with only minor inconsistencies.
With 46 tools, the server exceeds the typical well-scoped range and approaches the extreme threshold. While the broad scope of a full development platform justifies many tools, this count may overwhelm agents and increase misselection risk.
The tool surface covers the full development lifecycle: project creation, file operations, database management, resource provisioning, deployment, testing, and debugging. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no delete_project or checkpoint management), but core workflows are well-supported.