searchSearch this site's content. Returns matching documents (id, title, url); pass an id to fetch for the full text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search query |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| results | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral value by disclosing that results include only id, title, and url rather than full text, and by routing full-text retrieval to `fetch`. This is meaningful context beyond the 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?
Two concise sentences, with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The first sentence states what the tool does; the second covers the return shape and the natural next step. Every word earns its place.
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 single-parameter search tool with annotations covering safety and an output schema available, the description is largely complete: it identifies the search scope, result fields, and follow-up action via `fetch`. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit differentiation from the sibling `search_articles`, which could leave the agent uncertain about which search tool to choose.
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 `query` described as 'Search query'. The description does not add details about query syntax, matching semantics, or limitations, but the schema already adequately documents the only parameter. A baseline of 3 is appropriate because the description contributes no additional parameter-level meaning.
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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and a clear resource ('this site's content'), and states that it returns matching documents with id, title, and url. It explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool `fetch` by directing the agent to pass an id there for full text, but it does not distinguish itself from the overlapping sibling `search_articles`.
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 a clear usage flow: use search to find matching documents, then pass an id to `fetch` for full text. This gives useful context for when to use this tool versus `fetch`, though it offers no explicit guidance about when to use `search_articles` instead of this broader search.
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.
fetch and get_article both retrieve full text and are differentiated only by identifier type (id versus slug), while search and search_articles both perform keyword searches with different result shapes. Despite helpful descriptions, the boundaries between these pairs are unclear and likely to cause misselection.
Most names use snake_case verb phrases like get_article and list_recent_articles, but popular_content is a noun phrase and fetch/search are bare verbs with no object. The naming is understandable but mixes conventions.
Six tools is a well-scoped set for a read-only content retrieval gateway. Each tool has a clear place: searching, fetching, listing recent, and surfacing popular content.
The tool surface covers the core content lifecycle: search, retrieval, recent articles, and popular content. Minor gaps like pagination or filtering for search and recent listings exist, but agents can work around them.