search_growthmakSearch all Growthmak content — services, packages, case studies, blog posts, FAQs and free tools. Use this only when no more specific tool fits; prefer get_growth_engine, get_packages, find_case_studies or check_market_coverage where they apply. Returns matching pages with titles, URLs and excerpts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | Natural-language search query | |
| section | No | all |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format ('pages with titles, URLs and excerpts'), but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, side effects, or any other behavioral details beyond the output. For a search tool, this is acceptable but slightly limited.
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 sentences: purpose and scope, usage guidelines with alternatives, and output summary. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose, no wasted words, and important information is front-loaded.
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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and output format reasonably well. It does not explain pagination or section filtering details, but the schema covers those. The description is sufficient for the tool's complexity.
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 only 33% (query has a description). The description adds value by listing the content types that map to the 'section' parameter, but does not elaborate on 'limit' or the 'query' format beyond what the schema provides. Given low coverage, more compensation would be ideal.
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 clearly states the tool searches all Growthmak content and lists specific content types (services, packages, case studies, blog posts, FAQs, free tools). It uses the verb 'search' and explicitly names more specific sibling tools, distinguishing its broad scope.
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 explicitly instructs to use this tool only when no more specific tool fits, and lists four alternatives: get_growth_engine, get_packages, find_case_studies, and check_market_coverage. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: book_growth_audit returns a booking link, check_market_coverage checks geographic coverage, find_case_studies retrieves case studies, get_growth_engine explains the Growth Engine system, get_packages lists packages, get_page retrieves a specific page, and search_growthmak is a fallback search. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., book_growth_audit, check_market_coverage, find_case_studies, search_growthmak), but get_growth_engine and get_page deviate slightly with 'growth_engine' and 'page' not being as uniformly structured. The naming is consistent and readable overall.
With 7 tools, the set is well-scoped for a marketing consultancy's MCP server. Each tool covers a distinct functional area (booking, geographic coverage, case studies, system explanation, packages, page retrieval, and search). No tool feels redundant or missing.
The server provides good coverage for key interactions: it can inform about services, packages, case studies, and booking. A minor gap is the lack of a tool to submit contact details or make a booking directly, but this is explicitly documented as out of scope. The surface feels complete for its stated purpose of information provision.