retro.boards.searchSearch across retrospectives by keyword: board summaries, action items and participant cards. Cards hidden by private writing during an ongoing retro are excluded. Optionally filter by team.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search query. Looks into board summaries, action items and participant cards. | |
| team_id | No | Optional: filter search to a specific team. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this as a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining that cards hidden by private writing during an ongoing retro are excluded, which informs expectations about result completeness.
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 with the primary action front-loaded. It includes the key scope and a relevant exclusion rule without any redundant or filler content.
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?
Given the tool has only two well-documented parameters, readOnly annotation, and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational aspects: what is searched, the optional filter, and an important exclusion. It could mention the result format or pagination, but that is not critical for a search tool.
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% for both parameters, so the schema already documents query and team_id. The description reiterates the query scope and team filter but does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond the exclusion caveat, which is more about result behavior than parameter meaning.
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 clearly identifies the resource scope ('across retrospectives') and the content searched (board summaries, action items, participant cards). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like retro.boards.list (listing boards) and retro.board.summary.get (fetching a single summary).
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 states clear usage context: searching by keyword across retrospectives with an optional team filter. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use, but the scope and filtering option make the intended use evident.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action, with overlapping tools like retro.actions.list and retro.board.actions.list explicitly differentiated in descriptions. The naming hierarchy (domain.resource.subresource.verb) helps keep properties separate.
Tools follow a consistent dot-separated resource-verb pattern, with singular/plural usage following standard collection vs. single-resource conventions (e.g., games.list vs. game.get). All verbs are lowercase with underscores, making the surface predictable.
With 29 tools spanning two distinct domains (poker planning and retrospectives), the surface feels heavy and may overwhelm users. The calibration suggests 25+ is excessive, and splitting into separate servers could improve focus.
The tool set covers most management tasks for both poker games and retrospectives, but lacks a core operation for adding messages/cards to a board, which is essential for a retro tool. Also, no board creation or deletion tools, leaving some lifecycle operations incomplete.