search_docsSearch the full Wraps documentation (CLI, TypeScript SDKs, infrastructure, guides) and return the matching sections as markdown. Use this first for any 'how do I ... with Wraps' question.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum sections to return (default 5). | |
| query | Yes | Words to search for, e.g. 'verify domain', 'send batch', 'bounce handling'. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that it returns markdown sections and covers the full documentation scope. This adds context beyond the annotations without contradicting them, making behavior transparent.
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 with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the usage hint is concise. 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 search tool with annotations covering safety and a schema covering parameters, the description provides sufficient detail: what it searches, what it returns, and when to use it. No gaps that would hinder correct invocation.
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%, with both 'query' and 'limit' fully described in the input schema. The description does not add additional parameter semantics, so the baseline 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 ('search'), a clear resource ('full Wraps documentation'), and the output format ('matching sections as markdown'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings (get_doc, list_docs) by its search functionality.
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 gives explicit guidance: 'Use this first for any "how do I ... with Wraps" question.' This clearly indicates when to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like get_doc for retrieving a specific doc, but the sibling names and the 'first' phrasing provide sufficient context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.