searchSearch clients and reports by name (minimum 2 characters)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | Search query (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 / $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 and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the minimum length constraint, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention potential partial matches, case sensitivity, or that it might return limited results. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.
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 a single sentence with the essential constraint (minimum 2 characters) embedded, making it informative without waste. Front-loaded with the verb and resource.
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 simple read-only search tool with an output schema present, the description covers the purpose, scope, and key constraint. It doesn't explain pagination or result limits, but given the output schema exists and the tool's simplicity, it's nearly complete for an agent to call correctly.
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 schema already documents the 'q' parameter with minLength. The description adds a bit of meaning by saying 'by name' and noting the minimum character count, but this mostly mirrors the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.
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 clear verb ('Search') and resource ('clients and reports'), with the scope 'by name' explicitly stated. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_clients and list_reports by focusing on search rather than listing.
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 implies usage for finding clients/reports by name but doesn't explicitly say when to prefer this over list_clients or list_reports, nor does it mention alternatives. The minimum length requirement is a usage constraint, but no exclusions or context are provided.
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.