search_concepts
Search for a concept by keyword across AgentForce CKG domains.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Keyword to search for (e.g. 'Flex Credit', 'Trust Gate') | |
| domain | No | Optional: limit search to one domain |
Search for a concept by keyword across AgentForce CKG domains.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Keyword to search for (e.g. 'Flex Credit', 'Trust Gate') | |
| domain | No | Optional: limit search to one domain |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does. It omits behavioral traits like pagination, read-only nature, or domain boundaries beyond the enum.
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?
A single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient.
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?
The tool is simple (2 params, no nested objects), and the schema covers all parameters. However, the lack of output schema and minimal description limits completeness for an agent to understand what is returned.
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% with good descriptions for both parameters. The overall description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.
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 ('Search') and resource ('concept across AgentForce CKG domains'). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'query_ckg', the keyword search focus is clear.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'query_ckg' or 'list_domains'. No when-not or prerequisite information provided.
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.