Search skills and books by name, slug, or category.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"query": "<query>"
},
"name": "search_catalog"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the searchable fields, but not whether matching is exact or partial, case-sensitive, ranked, paginated, or limited in result count. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves important behavioral traits undisclosed.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. For a one-parameter search tool, that is an appropriately compact structure.
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 tool is simple, with one parameter and no output schema, and the description states the resource types and searchable fields. However, it omits matching behavior and result-shape expectations that would help an agent invoke the tool confidently.
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 has one required string parameter, 'query', with 0% description coverage. The description compensates partially by saying the query can match name, slug, or category, but it does not clarify whether these are alternatives, how they are combined, or what matching syntax is supported.
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 gives a specific verb, 'Search', and names the resources searched: skills and books. It also states the searchable dimensions (name, slug, category). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_books/list_skills or get_book, which keeps it from a 5.
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 implies a query-based lookup when you have a name, slug, or category term, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over list_books, list_skills, or get_book. There are no stated exclusions or alternative-routing instructions.
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.