搜尋二行程經典機車車款（本田、山葉、鈴木、川崎等），回傳車款代號。
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_models"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | 車款名稱，例如 NSR250、RZ350 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the output kind (model codes) and the domain scope (two-stroke classics, four brands), but says nothing about matching behavior (exact vs. fuzzy), result limits, pagination, case sensitivity, or whether it is an unbounded read.
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 compact sentence that front-loads the action and scope and closes with the return value. Nothing is redundant or padded.
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 one-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is searched, the domain restrictions, and what comes back. It does not state how many results are returned or how results are shaped, which is a small residual gap rather than a blocking one.
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%, so the single 'query' parameter is already fully documented with examples (NSR250, RZ350). The description adds domain framing (Honda/Yamaha/Suzuki/Kawasaki two-stroke classics) that narrows what a valid query looks like, but no syntax, format, or matching details beyond the schema. 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?
The description states a specific verb (搜尋/search) and a precisely bounded resource (classic two-stroke motorcycle models from Honda, Yamaha, Suzuki, Kawasaki, etc.), plus the return type (model codes). An agent can tell it apart from get_model_specs because this one retrieves identifiers rather than specifications. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling tools it complements.
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 rather than stated: you search a model name to obtain a model code, which pairs naturally with get_model_specs/find_part that take codes. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, no mention of alternatives, and no statement about what to do when the query returns nothing.
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.