Recherche dans les contenus de MB Mastering (services de mastering, tarifs, studio, FAQ) et renvoie une liste de résultats avec id, titre, extrait et URL. / Searches MB Mastering content (mastering services, rates, studio info, FAQ) and returns matching results.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Termes de recherche / search query. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes output structure (id, titre, extrait, URL) and content coverage, which is helpful. No annotations, so description carries burden; could mention it's read-only or any limitations.
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 concise sentences in two languages, no fluff, front-loaded with main action.
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?
Given simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, description covers what it searches and returns. Could add guidance on when to use vs siblings.
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?
Only one parameter 'query' with description in schema; description adds no extra semantic detail beyond that.
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?
Clear verb 'recherche/searches' and specific resource 'MB Mastering content' including categories. Distinguishes from sibling tools like get_faq or get_pricing which target specific sections.
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?
Implies use for general search across content, but no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over dedicated sibling tools. No when-not-to-use statements.
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 serves a distinct purpose: search/fetch for content, get_* for info categories, and quote-related tools for requests/admin. Minor overlap exists between get_pricing and get_services, which both mention tariffs, but they are otherwise clearly differentiated.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (get_faq, get_pricing, send_quote_request, prepare_quote_email), but 'fetch' and 'search' are bare verbs that deviate from the get_* style. All names are lowercase snake_case, so consistency is mostly preserved.
With 8 tools, the server is well-scoped for a studio information and quote integration. Each tool adds value without redundancy, and the count is within the ideal range.
The server covers all core needs: searching and retrieving content, accessing service/pricing/FAQ/studio info, requesting quotes, and preparing admin emails. No major dead ends or missing operations for the apparent domain.