search_answersSearch Answers by free-text query over question/answer text. Returns contract v0 records. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results to return (default: loader's choice, capped 200). | |
| query | Yes | Free-text query matched against question/answer text. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| results | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "results": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "propertyNames": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "results"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so "Read-only" is pure repetition. "Returns contract v0 records" gestures at output shape, but with an output schema present that adds little an agent could not already see. Effectively no new behavioral context.
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?
Three tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no padding. The trailing "Read-only" clause is redundant against the annotations and is the only wasted token.
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 low-complexity, 2-param read tool with complete schema, full annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose and input mode adequately. The remaining gap is sibling routing (get_answer versus list_answers), which the agent must infer.
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% for both parameters (query matching target, limit cap/default), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates the query semantics without adding syntax, tokenization, or matching behavior. Baseline 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?
Specific verb+resource+"free-text query over question/answer text" mechanism, which cleanly separates it from the list_answers/get_answer siblings by retrieval mode. It never names a sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.
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 phrase "by free-text query" implies when to reach for this rather than list_answers (browsing) or get_answer (known id), but the description states no conditions, prerequisites, or named alternatives. Usage is left to inference from the verb.
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.