Search saved highlights and notes using hybrid semantic + full-text search. Use this when you need to recall what the user has researched about a topic.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | Search query | |
| url | No | Filter results to a specific page URL | |
| tags | No | Filter results to only these tags | |
| limit | No | Max results to return (1–20, default 10) |
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 carries the burden alone; it does disclose the meaningful trait that results come from a blended semantic + full-text ranking. It says nothing about pagination limits (beyond schema), ordering, or what a result record contains, and does not explicitly affirm this is a non-mutating read.
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, zero waste, with the capability statement front-loaded ahead of the usage trigger. Nothing redundant with the title or schema.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description could reasonably say something about result shape or ranking, but it does not. For a four-parameter search tool with no annotations, the definition covers what it does and roughly when, but leaves the return contract and filtering semantics implicit.
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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented, setting the baseline at 3. The description adds no parameter guidance at all — it never mentions that url or tags act as filters or that limit caps the result count — so it does not exceed 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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Search saved highlights and notes") plus the retrieval mechanism (hybrid semantic + full-text), which distinguishes it from the listing-type siblings like get_recent_research and list_folders. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use for a single-URL or folder-scoped lookup, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.
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?
"Use this when you need to recall what the user has researched about a topic" gives a clear triggering condition. It stops short of exclusions or naming an alternative (e.g., use get_highlights_for_url when the page is known), so an agent must infer the boundary from sibling names.
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.
