[FIND · door] Ranked search over the keeping (the kept library).
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"query": "<query>"
},
"name": "search"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / limit / maximumAdded value: +1000000000000Input schema / properties / limit / minimumAdded value: +-1000000000000Input schema / properties / query / maxLengthAdded value: +4000Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Ranked search' hints at ordering, but nothing is said about read-only safety, result limits, pagination, or what happens with an empty result. A search tool with zero annotation coverage needs far more.
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?
One short sentence, front-loaded with '[FIND · door]'. It is efficient, though the bracket tag is noise rather than structure.
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 2-parameter search tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is far too sparse. It omits parameter semantics, result format, and routing to alternatives, leaving an agent unable to call it confidently.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'ranked' (implying relevance ordering) but does not explain the 'query' string format, max length, or the meaning of 'limit'. Only marginal value over the bare 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?
The description 'Ranked search over the keeping (the kept library)' uses a metaphor rather than a concrete resource name. An agent cannot tell what 'the keeping' is or how this differs from siblings like 'find_verifier', 'search' vs 'study_find'. The tag '[FIND · door]' is cryptic boilerplate, not a verb+resource statement.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the many search-like siblings (ask, locate, lookup, study_find, find_verifier, define). There is no exclusion criteria and no alternative named.
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.