Search active community members by username/display-name keyword. Anti-enumeration: at most 10 results, no pagination, public profile fields only (username, display name, ghost flag). Public endpoint: no auth required, rate-limited. q is required and must be non-empty.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | Keyword, non-empty | |
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does so well: it discloses the anti-enumeration cap (at most 10 results), absence of pagination, the exact fields returned, a public/no-auth endpoint, and rate limiting. These are exactly the traits an agent needs before invoking.
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?
Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by constraints; every clause carries actionable information and there is no filler or repetition.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description still specifies the returned fields (username, display name, ghost flag), the result cap, pagination behavior, auth requirements, and rate limiting. Nothing material for a correct invocation is missing.
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 50%: `q` is already documented as non-empty in the schema, and the description largely restates it, while `limit` (default 5, max 10) gets no direct explanation beyond the derived 'at most 10 results' note. It partially compensates for the coverage gap by tying the cap to the limit, but the default limit and its effect are left implicit.
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?
States a specific verb (search) plus resource (active community members) and the matching key (username/display-name keyword), which cleanly separates it from search_posts, search_boards, search_topics, and admin_list_users. An agent can identify the target resource without opening the schema.
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?
Usage is only implied: it describes a public, auth-free endpoint but never states when to prefer this over search_everything or get_profile, nor any exclusion conditions. The context is enough to infer intent, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternative.
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.
