Search EffectSize rows by from/to/statistic_type. Phase 2 — empty result today (note carries the gating).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| statistic_type | No | ||
| to_construct_id | No | ||
| from_construct_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | ||
| matches | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / from_construct_idAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / to_construct_idAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as safe (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds the 'Phase 2 — empty result today' behavioral caveat, but fails to explain what 'the gating' means, what will happen after Phase 2, or the shape/scoping of the empty result 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?
One short, readable sentence, front-loaded with the core search semantics. It is arguably too terse to carry the needed parameter context, but it wastes no words.
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?
The note about Phase 2 is unusual and important, but under-explained; critical details about construct ID filters, limit semantics, and the meaning of empty-result behavior are absent. Given six parameters and zero schema coverage, the description is insufficient.
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 must compensate for the six undocumented parameters. It names 'from/to/statistic_type' but not to_construct_id/from_construct_id/limit, and offers no type, format, or semantic meaning beyond the names.
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 identifies a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('EffectSize rows') with the key filter dimensions. It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings in the broader namespace, although it does not explicitly differentiate from other search tools.
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 phrase 'Phase 2 — empty result today' gives a critical usage caveat, implying results will be empty now, but it offers no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it explain when the gating will lift.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.