search_postsFull-text search of published messages. 100 free per day per key, then $1.00 per thousand, from the balance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | The words to find, at most 200 characters | |
| city | No | GeoNames id | |
| state | No | ISO 3166-2, e.g. US-CA | |
| topic | No | A topic slug, e.g. farmers-market | |
| country | No | ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | No | ||
| usage | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description implies a read-only search operation, but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, which contradicts the nature of a full-text search. Although the pricing/rate-limit detail is useful, the annotation contradiction is a serious behavioral inconsistency.
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 definition is two sentences: a front-loaded purpose statement followed by a pricing note. Every sentence is relevant and there is no wasted text.
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?
The tool has an output schema and full parameter documentation, so return values and inputs are covered elsewhere. However, the description lacks usage guidance versus sibling tools and contains an annotation contradiction, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent selecting and invoking 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for all five parameters, including q, city, state, topic, and country. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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: 'Full-text search of published messages.' This clearly distinguishes search from single-post retrieval, but it does not explicitly differentiate the tool from the sibling browse_posts tool.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browse_posts or get_post. It only mentions pricing after the purpose, leaving the agent to infer selection conditions.
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.