Search Ross ERP 8.0 programs by basename, TITLE program-id, title, module or type. Use this to find the program behind a task, e.g. 'check register' or 'ap_a'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 25) | |
| query | Yes | Search text, e.g. check register or AP_A_002 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses searchable fields and example inputs, which gives some insight, but it doesn't mention result format, pagination, or other behavioral details. This is adequate for a simple search tool but not rich.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and a concrete example. Every word earns its place with no fluff.
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 simple 2-param schema and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers the search scope and gives a realistic use case. It could mention the optional limit default but that's in the schema. Overall, sufficient for the tool's complexity.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about searchable fields, but the schema already provides examples for the query parameter. No significant additional meaning beyond the schema.
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 it searches Ross ERP 8.0 programs by multiple fields (basename, TITLE program-id, title, module, type) with a specific example. The verb 'search' and resource 'programs' are explicit, and the example distinguishes it from sibling search tools.
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?
Provides a specific use case: 'Use this to find the program behind a task, e.g. check register or ap_a.' This gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: list/lookup/search pairs are separated by summary vs full detail, exact match vs fuzzy search, and domain scope. Cross-reference tools are explicitly paired as reverse lookups (facility_programs/program_facilities, table_facilities/table_programs), eliminating ambiguity. Minor overlaps like find_column vs search_columns and get_ddl vs lookup_table are well-differentiated by their descriptions.
The naming is largely predictable with list_ for browsing, lookup_ for full detail, search_ for searching, and _stats for overviews. Cross-links follow a noun_noun pattern (facility_programs, table_facilities). Exceptions like find_column, get_ddl, graph_neighbors, and path_between are still intuitive and do not create confusion, though they deviate from the dominant verb-first pattern.
At 21 tools, the set sits in the 16-25 range that feels heavy. However, each tool serves a distinct function across schema, facilities, programs, columns, and graph traversal, so the count is justified for a comprehensive data dictionary. It is not as tightly scoped as a typical CRUD server, but the breadth is necessary for the domain.
The tool set provides complete coverage for a read-only data dictionary: browsing, searching, full details, and cross-references for every entity type (objects, columns, facilities, programs), plus graph utilities. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations; stats and search-all tools further enhance orientation and cross-domain discovery.