search_articlesSearch Storyflo's article corpus. Returns slug, title, publisher, vertical, snippet, audio_url, and listen_seconds for each match. Use vertical to scope (tech / finance / science / media / sports / culture).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | Search query | |
| vertical | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral detail by specifying the exact fields returned and the vertical scoping option. It does not contradict annotations and provides meaningful context beyond them.
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 sentences: first states purpose and lists return fields, second provides vertical guidance. No wasted words, information is front-loaded, and 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?
The description covers the return fields and one parameter hint, but lacks details on query matching behavior, limit functionality, or pagination. Given the complexity (3 params, many siblings), more context would help an agent decide correctly, though the basic purpose is clear.
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 only 33% (only query has a description). The description mentions vertical scoping and its enum values, which are already in the schema. It does not elaborate on the query parameter (e.g., syntax, supported operators) or the limit parameter (e.g., default, interpretation). With low coverage, the description should compensate but adds little.
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 the tool searches Storyflo's article corpus and enumerates the return fields (slug, title, publisher, vertical, snippet, audio_url, listen_seconds). This provides a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('article corpus'), and distinguishes it implicitly from siblings like get_article by focusing on search and listing multiple fields.
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 gives one usage hint: 'Use vertical to scope' with the allowed values. However, it does not explain when to prefer this tool over siblings like search_declassified, get_article, or get_trending_topics. No when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions are provided.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is overlap between `get_my_private_feed`, `subscribe_topic`, and `list_subscriptions`—all return or manage feed URLs, which could confuse an agent. Otherwise, categories like publisher, fund manager, and search tools are clearly separated.
All tools use consistent snake_case with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., `get_article`, `search_articles`, `publisher_upload_audio`). Exceptions like `digest` are single-word verbs but still fit the pattern. No mixed conventions are present.
With 37 tools, the server exceeds the 25-tool threshold considered 'too many' by the rubric. While the broad scope (news, podcasting, publishing, fund management, embedding) justifies a large surface, the count still adds cognitive load and would benefit from splitting into separate servers.
The tool set covers the major domains: search, retrieval, subscriptions, publishing, fund manager operations, and embedder network. Minor gaps exist, such as the absence of an unsubscribe or delete-episode tool, but the core workflows are well-supported and agents can accomplish most tasks.