searchTypo-tolerant search across digests, episodes, people, companies, and channels (same ranking + excerpts as the site's /search). Use for ad-hoc discovery when you don't know which edition or episode id you need.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | Search text (≥2 chars) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| results | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "results": {
+ "items": {
+ "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 and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing 'typo-tolerant' behavior and 'same ranking + excerpts' as the website, which goes beyond annotations and helps set result expectations.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core function and scope, followed by the usage condition. No redundant words; every clause earns its place.
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?
With an output schema present, the return format is known. The description covers the search scope, typo tolerance, ranking reference, and usage condition. Annotations handle read-only and idempotency. Nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly is missing.
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%, and the parameter 'q' is fully described in the schema as 'Search text (≥2 chars)'. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so 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?
The description uses a specific verb ('search') and enumerates the resource types covered ('digests, episodes, people, companies, and channels'), and clarifies that it mirrors the site's /search ranking and excerpts. This distinguishes it from sibling getter/list tools, which focus on specific IDs or lists.
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?
It explicitly states when to use: 'for ad-hoc discovery when you don't know which edition or episode id you need.' This implies the alternative (use get_digest/get_episode when you know the ID) without naming them, but the condition is clear enough. Lacks explicit exclusions but is still well-directed.
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.