search_itemsSearch the free-preview feedback items of one product, optionally by category and by words in the title or summary (all words must match). Each item carries the source threads (URL, date, quoted excerpt, state) behind it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Words to find in the title or summary. | |
| product | Yes | Product slug, name or domain, for example grafana. | |
| category | No | pain, request, workaround or switching. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/non-openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: results are limited to free-preview items and each item carries its source threads (URL, date, quoted excerpt, state), which is meaningful for a tool with no output schema.
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 tightly packed sentences with zero filler; the core scope and filters come first, with the result-content note following. Nothing restates the name or 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?
With no output schema, the description usefully previews the return shape (items plus source threads), and all three params are accounted for. It is slightly thin on ordering/result-volume behavior, which an agent might want for a search tool.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine semantics the schema lacks: 'q' requires all words to match (AND semantics, not OR or fuzzy), and the search is confined to one product rather than across products.
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 precise verb ('Search'), resource ('free-preview feedback items'), and scope ('of one product') plus the optional narrowing axes. The verb and the 'free-preview' qualifier make it unmistakably distinct from the sibling list_products and get_product_summary 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 implies usage by spelling out which filters exist (category, title/summary words) and the 'all words must match' condition, but it never says when to reach for this tool versus list_products or get_product_summary, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites.
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.