search_universitiesSearch the complete active UniAffitti university catalog worldwide with pagination and total count.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| country_code | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | Yes | ||
| total | Yes | ||
| offset | Yes | ||
| has_more | Yes | ||
| universities | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "has_more": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "limit": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "offset": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "total": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "universities": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "city": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "country_code": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "country_name": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "default_latitude": {
+ "type": [
+ "number",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "default_longitude": {
+ "type": [
+ "number",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "email_domain": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "region": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "website_url": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id",
+ "name",
+ "city",
+ "country_code",
+ "country_name"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "universities",
+ "total",
+ "limit",
+ "offset",
+ "has_more"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety profile is clear. The description adds that it's 'active' records only and supports pagination/total count, which is useful context. However, it doesn't describe return format details or rate limits, so it's modest value on top of 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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and scope. No wasted words.
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?
Has an output schema, so return values needn't be explained. However, the description omits parameter semantics entirely and provides no usage guidance for a search tool with multiple optional filters. Given the 0% schema coverage, this is a notable 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the 5 parameters (city, country_code, limit, offset, query) are entirely undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'pagination and total count', hinting at limit/offset, but provides no meaning for city, country_code, or query. With low coverage, the description should compensate but largely fails to do so.
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 a clear verb (Search) and resource (universities), and specifies scope (complete active UniAffitti university catalog worldwide). Distinguishes itself from siblings implicitly via the 'universities' resource, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with search_cities or list_university_campuses.
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?
No indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_university_campuses or search_cities. The description doesn't mention filters (city, country_code, query) as usage conditions. An agent must infer usage entirely from the name and sibling list.
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.