get_v1_searchv1 / Search Group: v1 Endpoint (Old Sora App). Billing per call: 1 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| after | No | You can get subsequent results by entering the `last_id` value taken from the first response. | |
| query | No | Search query | |
| user_id | No | Fetch content from a specific user. Allowed User ID or username. | |
| similar_to | No | Search for similar content. An array containing Generation IDs (`gen_...`) must be sent. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions billing and provides no information about side effects, read-only nature, pagination, rate limits, or return format. The tool's function is entirely opaque.
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?
The description is only one sentence but is under-specified, not concise. It repeats the tool's category and mentions billing, which is not a functional description. The structure provides no useful information for an agent.
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 search tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides almost no context. It fails to explain what content is searched, how pagination works (beyond schema hints), how similar_to is used, or how results are returned. The tool's role is not adequately contextualized.
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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters (after, query, user_id, similar_to), so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 applies due to high schema coverage.
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 'v1 / Search Group: v1 Endpoint (Old Sora App). Billing per call: 1 Credits.' merely restates the tool's name and adds billing info, without stating a specific action or what is searched. It is a tautology that doesn't distinguish from sibling search tools like get_v2_search.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only mentions billing and identifies it as an old Sora app endpoint, but does not explain when to prefer it over v2 search or feed tools. No exclusions or alternatives are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.