search_articlesSearch this publication's articles by keyword. Returns the best-matching titles, dates, canonical URLs, and short summaries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 5, max 20) | |
| query | Yes | Search keywords |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| total | No | ||
| articles | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's safety burden is low. It adds that results are 'best-matching' and lists the returned fields, but it does not describe sorting, matching semantics, or any operational caveats, keeping this at a baseline-3.
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 with the core action front-loaded and return fields immediately following. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler or tautological restatement of the title.
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?
This is a simple two-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations that describe safety. The description adds scope and output expectations, so an agent has everything needed to select and invoke it; only an explicit sibling comparison would improve it further.
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?
The input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (query and limit), so the schema already carries the parameter-semantics burden. The description only reinforces 'keyword' and adds no extra format, syntax, or default information 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource — 'Search this publication's articles by keyword' — and enumerates the return fields, which makes the tool's purpose concrete and separates it from fetch/get_article/list_recent_articles. It does not explicitly differentiate from the generic sibling 'search', so it falls just short of a 5.
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?
'Search this publication's articles by keyword' gives clear context for when the tool applies: keyword-based search over this publication's content. It does not mention exclusions or name alternatives like the sibling 'search', but the core usage condition is explicit.
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.