tool_searchSearch available Sunago Matrix MCP tools by keyword. Returns name, title, and description of matching tools.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | Keyword(s) to match against name, title, or description. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description carries a lower burden. The description adds that it returns name, title, and description, which is useful. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
A single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and includes the key return fields. No filler or redundant wording.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully states what the tool returns. The only minor omission is explicit mention of how limit affects results or matching behavior, but the schema covers the constraint details.
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 schema documents the query parameter. The description echoes the keyword-matching behavior but adds little about the limit parameter. The limit parameter has useful schema constraints (default, min, max), so the gap is acceptable. Overall the description partially compensates for the 50% schema coverage.
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 specifies the exact action ('Search available Sunago Matrix MCP tools by keyword') and the resource scope, and states the return fields. This clearly distinguishes it from the many domain-specific sibling tools.
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 intended use is clear: use this tool when you need to discover which MCP tools match a keyword. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the purpose provides sufficient context.
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 follow a clear resource+action pattern and the descriptions are unusually precise about boundaries. A few near-overlaps remain: projects_get_finance vs projects_get_financials, and notes_create vs crm_log_activity on a deal are both plausible for recording a note on a deal.
The domain_prefix_action convention is consistent across nearly all tools, e.g. crm_create_lead, projects_update_risk, timelog_approve_time. Deviations include standalone list_trash, meta tools like whoami/tool_search/tool_invoke, and the confusing projects_get_finance/projects_get_financials pair.
With 105 tools, this far exceeds the 50+ threshold defined as an extreme mismatch. Even for a full ERP/CRM suite, the fine-grained split—39 project tools alone—creates a massive tool-selection surface that is hard for an agent to navigate reliably.
The surface covers CRM, projects, tasks, time/expenses, HR, notes, notifications, contracts, and reporting with create/read/update/delete for most primary entities. Minor gaps exist: crm_log_activity has no read-back path, contracts lack delete/restore, and proposals are intentionally read-only, but agents can work around these.