search_cardsFull-text search over the MyCardfolio sports card database. Searches player/subject names, card numbers, products, sets, and card details. Optionally filter by sport and year.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | No | Year filter, e.g. "1989" | |
| limit | No | Max results (default 20, max 50) | |
| query | Yes | Search terms, e.g. "griffey upper deck" | |
| sport | No | Sport/category filter, e.g. "baseball" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that this is a full-text search over particular fields and that sport/year filters are optional, which is useful. However, it does not describe return behavior, pagination, sorting, or any other operational details beyond the basic search action.
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 compact sentences with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded, the searchable fields are listed efficiently, and the optional filters are mentioned without redundancy.
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 only one required parameter and high schema coverage, the description covers the basics adequately. However, there is no guidance about result format, limits, or how this search differs from related tools like browse and identify_card, leaving moderate gaps for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic value by explaining that the query applies to player/subject names, card numbers, products, sets, and card details, which helps an agent craft better queries than the schema examples alone.
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 states a specific verb and resource: full-text search over the MyCardfolio sports card database. It also enumerates the searchable fields, which clarifies what the tool operates on. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like browse or identify_card, but the 'full-text search' framing is specific enough to differentiate.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like browse, identify_card, find_variants, or get_card. It only mentions optional filters, which describes functionality rather than usage context 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.