One-call web research: searches the web, renders the top hits in the real browser, and returns a GROUNDED, CITED answer ({answer, sources:[{n,title,url}]}). Falls back to the rendered sources if synthesis is unavailable. Free. Pass handle for governed tiers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | the question to research | |
| handle | No | your registered handle (governs powerful tiers) | |
| max_pages | No | pages to read + cite (1-5, default 3) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavior: free, fallback to rendered sources if synthesis unavailable, and handle for governed tiers. Output format is specified.
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 concise (one sentence) but packs important details. Could be slightly more structured, but it is front-loaded with the core purpose and key behavioral notes.
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 tool's complexity and absence of output schema, the description covers output format, fallback behavior, free tier, and handle governance. It is fairly complete for an agent to understand usage.
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 clear descriptions. The description confirms the handle parameter for governed tiers and max_pages range, but adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already covers parameters well.
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 it is a one-call web research tool that searches the web, renders top hits, and returns a grounded, cited answer. It distinguishes from sibling tools like web_search and browse by offering a combined, synthesis-driven approach.
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 usage for comprehensive research with citations, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives like browse for more controlled navigation. No direct comparison with siblings.
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.
Many tools serve similar purposes (e.g., web_read vs browse_read, web_discover vs browse_discover, research vs web_search + browse). Descriptions help differentiate, but the overlap is notable.
Most tools use a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., archive_message, browse_navigate). Minor deviations like standalone 'browse' and 'identity' are acceptable.
57 tools is very high for a single server, even with discover_tools. The broad domain coverage does not justify the count; it feels overloaded.
Covers identity, memory, browsing, human tasks, errands, messaging, and research comprehensively. Minor gaps might exist (e.g., no explicit agent-to-agent contract tools), but core workflows are well-supported.