searchSearch Promptafire lessons and blog posts. Returns ids for fetch, titles, and web URLs. Lesson ids look like lesson:/, post ids like post:.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | What to look for |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| results | 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 it read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds useful behavioral context: the search is scoped to lessons and blog posts, and results include id/title/url plus exact id formats ('lesson:<module>/<section>', 'post:<slug>'). This helps an agent interpret and use results correctly.
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?
Three short sentences, each with a distinct job: state the search scope, list the result fields, and define id formats. No fluff or repetition, and the purpose is front-loaded.
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 a single well-documented parameter, a read-only annotation set, and an output schema present, the description is complete enough for invocation. It tells the agent what is searched, what comes back, and how to interpret ids.
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% with a clear description for 'query' ('What to look for') and length limits. The description adds scope context but no additional parameter syntax or query-format guidance, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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'), a specific resource ('Promptafire lessons and blog pots'), and the output payload ('ids for fetch, titles, and web URLs'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fetch, list_*, and search_curriculum by resource scope and role.
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?
It clearly implies when to use the tool: when searching lessons and blog posts, and the returned ids are meant to feed into fetch. It does not explicitly state when to prefer search_curriculum or list_* instead, so it lacks explicit exclusion 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.
Most tools are distinct, but fetch overlaps with read_lesson and read_post since both can return lesson/post markdown, and search/search_curriculum have similar scopes. The descriptions help clarify some boundaries, such as search returning ids for fetch, but an agent could still be uncertain which retrieval tool to use.
Tool names mostly follow a verb_noun pattern like list_modules, read_lesson, and get_module. The main inconsistencies are the bare verbs fetch and search, plus the mixed use of get versus read for similar retrieval actions.
Eight tools is well-scoped for a content platform covering curriculum browsing, lesson reading, blog posts, and search. Each tool has a reasonable place in the workflow without excessive redundancy.
The tool surface covers the full content lifecycle: discovering tracks/modules, listing posts, searching lessons and posts, retrieving module metadata, and reading full lesson or post markdown. Access-level handling is included, so there are no obvious dead ends for the stated purpose.