search_usersFind WindowsForum members whose usernames match a query — use to locate a member before calling get_user for their full profile.
| 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 description adds limited behavioral context (e.g., matches usernames). Does not disclose query behavior like partial matching or pagination, but not contradictory.
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 sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and usage. No redundant information.
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 the simplicity of the tool (2 params, 1 required) and existence of an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. Could mention limit default behavior, but not essential.
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. Description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 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?
Clearly states verb 'Find' and resource 'members whose usernames match a query'. Differentiates from sibling tools like get_user and other search tools by specifying it's for locating a member before fetching full profile.
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?
Explicitly states the workflow: use this to locate a member before calling get_user. However, it does not mention alternatives like search_posts or when not to use this tool.
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.