searchSearch this site's content. Returns matching documents (id, title, url); pass an id to fetch for the full text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search query |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| results | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "results": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "title": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id",
+ "title",
+ "url"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "results"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds useful behavior beyond annotations by specifying the result fields (id, title, url) and that full text requires a subsequent fetch call. No contradictions.
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 short sentences that front-load the action and result, then add the fetch pointer. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler.
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 low-complexity tool with one parameter, an output schema, and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description covers the essentials: what it searches, what it returns, and the next step. It could be more explicit about routing to the specialized search siblings, but that 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?
The only parameter, query, is already fully described in the schema as 'Search query' (100% coverage), so the description adds little new semantic detail. It does connect the query to searching 'this site's content,' but that is mostly redundant.
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 verb 'Search' and resource 'this site's content' make the action and scope clear, and the return shape (id, title, url) tells an agent what kind of results to expect. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tools search_articles and search_products, so the differentiation is only by implied breadth.
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 clear context: use it to search the site's content, and after getting an id, pass it to fetch for full text. It does not name alternative search tools or state when not to use it, but the generic 'site's content' scope offers adequate guidance.
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.