searchSearch the web and return results.
Optionally fetch the content of each result. Fetching content is much
slower and more expensive — only set `fetchContent` when you actually need
the page bodies rather than just the links and snippets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| fetchContent | No | ||
| maxCharsPerResult | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that fetching content is slower and costlier, and explains the trade-off between links/snippets vs full bodies. This is additive beyond the annotations, which only state read-only and open-world hints. It clarifies the default behavior (links/snippets) and the cost of opting into content fetching.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then a focused caveat on cost. Each sentence earns its place with no redundancy.
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?
The description is adequate for a simple search tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety. It lacks explicit mention of the numeric parameters, but their defaults and types are in the schema. The core behavior and the costly option are covered, so the agent can make an informed call.
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?
The description meaningfully explains the fetchContent parameter, including its performance implications. However, it does not address limit or maxCharsPerResult, leaving the agent to rely on the schema alone. With 0% schema description coverage, the description only partially compensates for the missing parameter semantics.
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 clearly that it performs web searches and returns results. The specific verb 'Search' and resource 'the web' make the action unambiguous, and the optional content fetching adds nuance. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the name and basic function are sufficient for selection.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to prefer search over sibling tools. The only guidance is about the fetchContent parameter, not tool selection. No mention of alternatives or contexts where other tools would be more appropriate.
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.