searchSearch clients and reports by name (minimum 2 characters)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Name or part of a name to look for (min 2 chars) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | Matches grouped by kind — clients, reports, users, automations, api_keys, email_addresses, email_templates, email_domains and domains, each an array of id + name rows (capped at 20 per kind). | |
| success | Yes | True when the call succeeded. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / qRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Search query (min 2 chars)",
- "minLength": 2,
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / queryAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Name or part of a name to look for (min 2 chars)",
+ "minLength": 2,
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "q"
-]New value: +[
+ "query"
+]Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Output schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Output schema / properties / success / descriptionPrevious value: -"True when the call succeeded. A failure comes back as an error result instead."New value: +"True when the call succeeded."Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "description": "Matches grouped by kind — clients, reports, users, automations, api_keys, email_addresses, email_templates, email_domains and domains, each an array of id + name rows (capped at 20 per kind).",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "success": {
+ "description": "True when the call succeeded. A failure comes back as an error result instead.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "success"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only the 2-character minimum, which merely restates the schema constraint, and says nothing about matching semantics or result ordering.
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 zero filler. The scope (clients and reports) and the key constraint (min 2 characters) both land immediately.
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 an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description need not explain return values. It is adequate for a one-parameter search tool, though it omits scope details like which fields match or whether results are paginated.
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% and the single query parameter is fully documented in the schema (name or part of a name, min 2 chars). The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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) and resources (clients and reports) with the matching mode (by name). An agent can immediately tell what it does, though it offers no differentiation from related list_clients/list_reports siblings, which is a mild gap.
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 implied by the description (use it to find clients/reports by name) but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus list_clients, list_reports, get_client, or get_report. The minimum character rule is present but that is a constraint, not routing guidance.
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.