search_postsSearch individual WindowsForum posts (not just thread titles) for a keyword or phrase — use to find specific answers, error messages, or fixes buried inside long threads.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of results | |
| query | Yes | Search query string |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the scope (searching inside posts), which is a behavioral detail not covered by annotations. 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?
Single, well-structured sentence that conveys the purpose and usage context without any fluff. Front-loaded with the key action.
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?
Given that an output schema exists (so return values are documented) and annotations cover safety, the description is contextually complete. It explains the tool's function and when to use it, leaving no critical gaps.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters (query and limit). The description does not add additional parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 individual forum posts (not thread titles) for a keyword or phrase, with specific use cases like finding answers, error messages, or fixes. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_threads.
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 explicitly says when to use the tool (to find answers buried in long threads) and implicitly contrasts with searching thread titles, but does not list alternative tools like search_threads. Clear enough but could be more explicit.
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 the numerous search variants (search, search_elastic, search_semantic, search_threads, search_posts) overlap in functionality. However, detailed descriptions help differentiate them, so only minor ambiguity exists.
Tool names predominantly follow a verb_noun pattern (get_, search_, list_). However, 'fetch' is a bare verb, and 'list_threads' uses 'list' instead of 'get', creating slight inconsistency. Overall, the pattern is clear.
With 22 tools, the count is on the higher side for a forum server. Several search tools could be consolidated, but the scope (reading threads, posts, users, statistics, KB articles) justifies the number. Borderline heavy.
The tool surface covers all read operations for a forum: threads, posts, users, statistics, news, KB articles, and multiple search methods. However, there are no write tools (create, update, delete), which is a minor gap if interaction is expected.