Busca trechos da documentação local da biblioteca. Quando usar: para encontrar instruções e referências da API. Quando não usar: para consultar dados clínicos ou códigos específicos.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| texto | Yes | ||
| limite | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| resultados | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about search semantics (substring vs fuzzy, ranking, whether results are snippets or full documents) or that the operation is a read-only lookup. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage this leaves meaningful behavioral gaps.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action followed by the use/avoid rules. Every sentence carries information; the only weakness is that brevity leaves the parameter and behavioral gaps unfilled.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value shape needn't be described, and the use/avoid guidance covers the routing decision. However, with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is not complete enough about the 'limite' parameter and search behavior for an agent to call it confidently.
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 0% and the description never mentions either parameter. The meaning of 'texto' as a query string is inferable from context, but 'limite' (default 3, max 10) is undocumented anywhere, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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-resource pair ('Busca trechos da documentação local da biblioteca'), which is clearly a docs-search operation distinct from the TISS/TUSS/operadora siblings. It doesn't name any sibling directly, so the differentiation comes from the exclusion phrasing rather than explicit routing.
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 explicitly splits 'Quando usar' (finding instructions and API references) from 'Quando não usar' (clinical data or specific codes), which is clear positive and negative guidance. It stops short of naming which sibling tool to use instead of the excluded cases.
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.