searchFull-text search across every page on savingslast.com: the calculators, the guides, the Social Security pages, the state retirement-tax pages and the reference pages. Returns ids to pass to fetch.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum results, 1 to 25. Default 10. | |
| query | Yes | What to look for, in plain words. |
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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral value by disclosing that the tool returns ids rather than full page content, which is critical for invoking it correctly alongside fetch.
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 concise sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, the scope is clarified with useful examples, and the return-value purpose is stated in the second sentence. Every sentence 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 with one required parameter and full schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It explains the scope and what the return value should be used for. It does not detail result ordering or no-result behavior, but given the annotations and schema, this is a minor gap.
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 both query and limit are already documented. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, 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 clearly states a specific action: full-text search across every page on savingslast.com, and specifies the scope by naming the content categories. It also explains the output purpose ('Returns ids to pass to fetch'), distinguishing it from siblings like fetch and list_pages.
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 makes the use case clear: use this tool to find content by keyword across the site, then pass returned ids to fetch. It gives clear context and a natural workflow, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.