search_articlesSearch Psychiatry for Kids's editorial corpus by query. Returns title, slug, summary, and URL for matching articles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Alternate parameter name for `query`. | |
| limit | No | Max results (default 10, max 50). | |
| query | Yes | Free-text search query. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / properties / limit / maximumAdded value: +50Input schema / properties / limit / minimumAdded value: +1Input schema / properties / limit / typePrevious value: -"number"New value: +"integer"Input schema / properties / qAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Alternate parameter name for `query`.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / query / descriptionPrevious value: -"Free-text query. Matches title and summary."New value: +"Free-text search query."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is known. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating what the response contains (title, slug, summary, URL) and scoping the search to the editorial corpus. This exceeds the baseline for annotation-covered tools.
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?
The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and provides necessary return information without waste. Every word earns its place.
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 simple search tool, the description is complete: it states the action, scope, and return fields. The schema covers parameters, and annotations cover safety. It does not mention pagination or sorting, but these are not required for a straightforward query-based search.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond 'by query,' which is already covered by the schema descriptions for 'query' and 'q.' It does not explain limit behavior beyond what the schema already states.
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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Psychiatry for Kids's editorial corpus'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_articles or get_article. It also specifies the return fields (title, slug, summary, URL), which further clarifies its unique purpose.
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 description clearly implies when to use it: when you need to find matching articles by query. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like list_articles or get_article, but the context is obvious. No exclusions are stated, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.
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.