Search approved One AI Guide tools with typo-tolerant, singular/plural, and chatbot-aware matching.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "search_tools"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| locale | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| category | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description then adds genuine behavioral context the annotations cannot convey: typo tolerance, singular/plural normalization and chatbot-aware matching, which tells the agent how to phrase queries and what recall to expect. It stops short of describing result ordering or pagination behavior.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the qualifying clauses about matching behavior are attached directly to the verb they modify. Nothing is redundant.
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?
With five undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no explanation of what a match returns or how limit/offset interact, the definition leaves real gaps for a search tool. The matching semantics are helpful but do not compensate for the missing parameter and result-shape guidance.
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?
Five parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them. The word 'Search' hints at q, but limit, offset, locale and category — including the enum of six languages and the numeric bounds — require the agent to read the schema and guess at semantics such as whether locale affects matching or result language.
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 gives a specific verb and resource — 'Search approved One AI Guide tools' — plus the matching behavior, so an agent knows this is retrieval, not a fetch-by-id like the sibling get_tool. It never names a sibling or draws an explicit boundary, which keeps it out of 5 territory.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, even though get_tool and list_guides/find-by-id siblings exist. The only steer is the word 'Search', which lets an agent infer it is for discovery rather than lookup, but nothing confirms that inference.
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.