stackoverflow_search搜索 Stack Overflow 上的技术问答（按相关度排序），返回问题标题、摘要、答案数、得分、标签与链接。当任务涉及排查代码报错、查技术方案、找最佳实践时使用。Example: {"query":"javascript array deduplicate","answers":1,"limit":5}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | 返回条数 1-10，默认 5 | |
| query | Yes | 搜索关键词，如 "python dict sort"、"react hooks error" | |
| answers | No | 最少答案数过滤（1=只要有答案，0=不限），默认 1 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as a safe read-only operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by stating relevance ordering and listing the returned fields, though it omits rate limits or pagination details.
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 front-loaded with purpose and return fields, followed by usage guidance and an example. It is efficient overall, but the example duplicates the schema's examples rather than adding new 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?
With no output schema, the description usefully lists the return fields. Combined with complete parameter descriptions and read-only annotations, it gives an agent enough information to invoke the tool correctly.
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 100%, and the schema documents each parameter, including limit range and the answers filter. The description's example mirrors the schema examples and does not add semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.
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 states a specific verb and resource: searching Stack Overflow technical Q&A, sorted by relevance. It also enumerates the returned fields, making the tool clearly distinguishable from siblings such as github_search and web_fetch.
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?
It explicitly names appropriate scenarios: troubleshooting code errors, researching technical solutions, and finding best practices. It does not cover when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.
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.