searchMetalTakip'in kendi yayınladığı Türkçe analiz ve araştırma makalelerinde arama yapar. Yalnız birinci taraf içerik döner; üçüncü taraf haberler kapsam dışıdır.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Arama sorgusu (Türkçe) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| results | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds value by clarifying the scope (only first-party content). No contradictory information; behavior is transparent for a read-only search tool.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence is meaningful. No redundancy or unnecessary information.
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 simple search tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description adequately covers the scope and source. It could mention query language or format, but overall is sufficient.
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% for the single parameter 'query', which is described in the schema. The tool description does not add any extra meaning or examples beyond what the schema provides.
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 in MetalTakip's own Turkish analysis and research articles, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it only returns first-party content, not third-party news.
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 provides clear context: use for searching first-party content only. It implicitly excludes third-party news, but does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like fetch or gunluk_ozet.
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: fetch retrieves full articles by ID, gunluk_ozet gives a daily summary, search finds articles, and turev_gostergeler provides computed indicators. No overlap in functionality.
The naming convention is inconsistent: 'fetch' and 'search' are English verbs, while 'gunluk_ozet' and 'turev_gostergeler' are Turkish noun phrases. No uniform pattern is followed.
With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for a digest service. It covers the essential operations (search, retrieve, summary, indicators) without being too sparse or bloated.
The tool set covers the main workflow (search, fetch, daily summary, derived indicators) but lacks historical data retrieval, trend analysis, or user customization options, which are reasonable omissions for a digest server.