search_resourcesSearch and filter approved public Lorcana resources.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | ||
| tag | No | ||
| sort | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| order | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| region | No | ||
| pricing | No | ||
| audience | No | ||
| category | No | ||
| language | No | ||
| platform | No | ||
| capability | No | ||
| resourceType | No | ||
| updatedAfter | No | ||
| verificationStatus | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The phrase 'approved public' is a genuinely useful restriction, but the description says nothing about pagination (cursor/limit), result scope, matching semantics, or access requirements. For a search tool with this many filters, the behavioral context is materially incomplete.
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 sentence with the verb front-loaded and no filler, which is efficient. However, for a 16-parameter tool with zero schema-level descriptions, one sentence is under-sized rather than appropriately sized, so the conciseness buys brevity at the cost of substance.
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?
Given the complexity (16 parameters), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the one-sentence description is far from complete. There is no explanation of pagination semantics, filter combination logic, what fields resources contain, or when to prefer a sibling tool. This is well below the minimum viable burden for an API of this surface area.
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% across 16 parameters, and the description names no parameters or value constraints. While sort/order are enum-constrained and a few names like q and limit are self-evident, valid values for tag, region, platform, capability, resourceType, verificationStatus, updatedAfter format, and how filters combine are entirely undocumented.
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 uses specific verbs ('Search and filter') on a concrete resource ('approved public Lorcana resources'), which clearly identifies the operation beyond the bare title. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_resource or list_taxonomies, though the search/filter framing implies a discovery role distinct from single-resource retrieval.
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?
No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not point to get_resource for fetching a specific known resource, mention list_taxonomies for valid filter values, or explain when search_resources is the right entry point. The intended usage is only implied by the verb 'search.'
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.
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: synchronizing changes, fetching a single resource by slug, listing taxonomies, and searching resources. get_resource and search_resources could seem similar, but exact-slug retrieval versus filtered search are meaningfully different operations.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: get_changes_since, get_resource, list_taxonomies, and search_resources. The verb-first style is uniform and predictable.
Four tools is well within the ideal range for this server's read-only directory purpose. Each tool covers a distinct aspect of the domain without redundancy or unnecessary surface area.
For a public resource directory, the surface is complete: clients can search, fetch specific resources, enumerate taxonomies, and synchronize incremental changes. No obvious read-only capability is missing for the stated domain.