Full-text search the Eco game wiki (items, recipes, skills, categories, animals, plants, biomes). Returns matching pages with their kind, name, slug, and a snippet. Use the slug with the matching wiki_get_* tool to read full facts. ALWAYS search first to find the right slugs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 8). | |
| query | Yes | What to search for (e.g. "iron bar", "carpentry", "deer"). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states what the tool returns (matching pages with kind, name, slug, snippet) and scopes the search to the Eco game wiki. It does not mention edge cases like empty results or relevance ordering, but the core behavior is well 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 two sentences plus one imperative, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by output details and usage guidance. No wasteful words; every sentence earns its place.
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?
For a simple search tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, return fields, and the follow-up action (using the slug). It lacks explicit mention of result ordering or limit behavior, but the limit parameter is documented, and the overall guidance is sufficient for an agent 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?
Both parameters have comprehensive schema descriptions, including examples, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond reinforcing the search context; the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already carries the main meaning.
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 performs full-text search on the Eco game wiki and enumerates the content types covered. It also differentiates itself from sibling tools by explaining that it returns slugs for use with wiki_get_* tools, making the purpose and role unambiguous.
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 an explicit workflow: 'ALWAYS search first to find the right slugs' and directs the user to use the returned slug with wiki_get_* tools. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use the tool, but the 'always search first' rule strongly implies a prerequisite for other wiki lookup tools.
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 (fetch, wiki_get, wiki_rank, wiki_calc, etc.), but search and wiki_search are clearly duplicated full-text search tools, and fetch vs wiki_get could be confused initially. Descriptions help but the overlap is notable.
Naming is inconsistent: 'fetch' and 'search' lack the 'wiki_' prefix used by others, and there is a mix of verb-based (get, rank, calc) and noun-based (bom, contract_basics) names. Having both 'search' and 'wiki_search' for the same functionality is a clear naming violation.
10 tools is within the ideal 3-15 range for a wiki server, covering search, retrieval, analytics, and recipe calculations. However, one tool is essentially redundant (search vs wiki_search), making the count slightly padded.
The tool surface covers the core wiki workflow: search, fetch markdown, read structured facts, rank/aggregate numeric data, and compute recipe-related metrics (BOM, raw materials, exact calc). Minor gaps like listing all entities of a kind without ranking, but overall no dead ends.