Keyword search over normalized_text + alternative_texts. Optional instrument_id filter narrows to canonical items whose source_items[] reference that instrument.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| instrument_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| matches | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the operation as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral detail beyond annotations: it specifies which fields are searched and explains how instrument_id filters by source_items[] references. There is no contradiction with annotations.
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?
Two tightly written sentences. The action is front-loaded and the optional filter is appended without redundant phrasing or filler.
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 search tool with one required parameter, one optional filter, and one optional limit, the description covers the main behavior and filter semantics. Required/optional status is evident from the schema, and the output schema handles return values. No critical information 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It gives semantics for q (keyword search) and instrument_id (filter by referenced instrument), but limit is not explained in the description. The schema does constrain limit's numeric range, so this is a minor gap.
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 it performs keyword search over normalized_text and alternative_texts for canonical items, with an optional instrument_id filter. The verb and resource are explicit, and 'canonical items' differentiates it from sibling search tools on other resource types.
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?
No guidance is given on when to choose this tool over siblings such as canonical_items.list/lookup or items.search. The description states what it does but not when to use it vs alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.