sekolah_searchSearch schools by name. Returns up to 50 results.
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": {
"q": "<q>"
},
"name": "sekolah_search"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | School name search (min 3 chars) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile needs no repetition. The genuinely new information is the result cap ("up to 50 results"), which warns the agent about truncation and the absence of pagination, but the return shape and any ranking/ordering of results remain undisclosed despite there being no output schema.
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 short sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and the result bound as a follow-up. No filler, no restated title, nothing that could be trimmed while preserving meaning.
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 tool with rich annotations, the definition covers what it does and the key operational constraint (maximum 50 results). It falls slightly short because there is no output schema, so the agent learns nothing about the returned school fields or whether results are ranked.
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 coverage is 100%, and the single parameter already documents itself as "School name search (min 3 chars)". The description's "by name" restates the schema rather than adding matching semantics such as prefix vs substring matching, so the 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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Search schools") plus the matching key ("by name"), which separates it from a generic lookup. It does not explicitly name the distinction from siblings like sekolah_list or sekolah_get, so an agent must infer that this is the name-query variant.
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?
"Search schools by name" implies the precondition (the agent has a name fragment), which is adequate implied guidance. It never states when to prefer sekolah_list (browse all) or sekolah_get (fetch by ID), and there is no exclusion or fallback guidance.
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.