Searches the built-in TokenSafe knowledge base (features, install, tiers, privacy).
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"query": "<query>"
},
"name": "search_docs"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Free-text query, min 2 chars |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a safe read-only lookup over a built-in KB, but discloses nothing about ranking, result count, pagination, or behavior on no-match queries.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource and its content scope come before any parenthetical detail.
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 one-parameter read-only search with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the definition covers what the tool queries. It slightly under-delivers on what a caller gets back and how to interpret a thin or empty result.
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?
There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Free-text query, min 2 chars'), so the schema already defines its semantics. The description adds only the implicit subject domain of what should be searched, not query syntax or formatting guidance.
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?
States a specific verb (Searches) and resource (the built-in TokenSafe knowledge base), and enumerates the covered domains (features, install, tiers, privacy) so an agent knows the content scope. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as get_setup_instructions, which overlaps with the 'install' topic.
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 parenthetical topic list implies the situations where this tool applies (questions about features, installation, tiers, privacy), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no routing away from overlapping siblings like get_setup_instructions or get_license_status.
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.