search_termsSearch Protologue for prompting and LLM techniques by name, synonym or keyword. Returns matching entries with their one-sentence definitions and canonical URLs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of results. | |
| query | Yes | Technique name, synonym or keyword, e.g. 'chain of thought' or 'RAG'. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the return shape (one-sentence definitions and canonical URLs), though it says nothing about result ordering, matching strictness, or truncation 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?
Two tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the return format appended efficiently. 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 two-parameter, no-output-schema search tool, the description covers purpose, matching modes, and return content, while annotations cover safety. Only minor gaps remain (relevance ordering, behavior on zero matches).
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 both query and limit are already documented in the schema, including the example values. The description's 'name, synonym or keyword' phrasing merely echoes the query parameter's schema description and adds no new constraint or format detail; 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?
States a specific verb (search) and resource (Protologue prompting/LLM techniques), plus the matching modes (name, synonym, keyword) and what comes back. It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from siblings like get_term, but the search-vs-retrieve split is inferable.
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 only implied: 'search by name, synonym or keyword' suggests this is for discovery when the exact term is unknown, with get_term presumably for exact lookup. No explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative is given.
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.