Search across the documentation to find relevant information, code examples, API references, and guides. Use this tool when you need to answer questions about BlockRazor, find specific documentation, understand how features work, or locate implementation details. The search returns contextual content with titles and direct links to the documentation pages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, open-world, and idempotent. The description adds that the search returns contextual content with titles and direct links, giving the agent insight into the response format. No contradictions with annotations.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by usage guidance, then output description. No unnecessary words; each sentence adds value.
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 only one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return type (titles and links) and the scope (BlockRazor documentation). Could mention limitations like result count, but overall sufficient.
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?
The only parameter 'query' is a string with no description in the schema (0% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning about the query parameter, such as format or expected input. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.
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 clearly states the tool searches documentation for various content types (code examples, API references, guides). It specifies the resource (documentation) and action (search). While it distinguishes itself from siblings by being a search tool, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like askQuestion or getPage.
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 lists when to use: to answer questions about BlockRazor, find specific documentation, understand features, or locate implementation details. It provides clear context for use but does not mention when not to use or suggest alternatives.
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 clearly distinct purpose: askQuestion provides synthesized answers, getPage fetches full page content, searchDocumentation returns search results, and sendFeedback reports issues. There is no overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent camelCase verb_noun pattern (e.g., askQuestion, getPage, searchDocumentation, sendFeedback), ensuring predictability.
With 4 tools covering documentation browsing, search, Q&A, and feedback, the count is well-scoped for the server's purpose without being too few or too many.
The tool set covers all necessary operations for a documentation server: retrieving pages, searching, asking questions, and reporting issues. There are no obvious gaps.
