search_allSearch across all published content — blog posts, static pages/tools, and companion GitHub repositories — ranked by relevance. Each result is prefixed with [post], [page], or [repo].
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 10) | |
| query | Yes | Keyword or question to search for | |
| content_type | No | Restrict to a content type (default all) | |
| excerpt_length | No | Max excerpt characters (default 150) |
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 full burden. It adds useful behavioral details: results are restricted to 'published content', ranked by relevance, and each result is prefixed with [post], [page], or [repo]. It does not mention read-only status or pagination, but for a search tool these are generally inferred and the provided details are meaningful.
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 long, with the first sentence stating the core action and scope, and the second providing a useful result-format detail. No filler or redundant content.
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?
The tool has four parameters, all documented in the schema, and no output schema is present. The description adequately covers the tool's behavior (what is searched, ranking, and output prefix), and the schema covers parameter details. It is complete for a search tool of this 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 100%, so the base score is 3. The description does not add extra parameter guidance beyond the schema. It does not explain content_type values or default limits, but the schema already documents these thoroughly.
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 uses a specific verb ('Search') with an explicit resource ('all published content') and enumerates the included content types (blog posts, static pages/tools, companion GitHub repositories). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_posts by scoping 'all' content, while also naming the result-prefix format.
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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when a cross-content-type search is needed. It states it covers blog posts, pages, and repos, making it obvious that narrower search tools like search_posts exist, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.
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.