Search FusionAuth sources
search_fusionauth_sourcesSearch FusionAuth documentation sources.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | The search query to find relevant FusionAuth documentation |
mcp-docs
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'search', which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't explain what sources are included, whether authentication is needed, how results are returned, or any limitations. This is minimal disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and front-loaded, immediately stating the tool's purpose. It earns its place entirely.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description is still quite thin. It doesn't clarify what 'documentation sources' means, how search results are presented, or what makes this different from ask_fusionauth_question. More context would be needed for an agent to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides a description for the single parameter ('The search query to find relevant FusionAuth documentation'), giving 100% coverage. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter meaning, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Search FusionAuth documentation sources.' It uses a specific verb ('search') and a specific resource ('FusionAuth documentation sources'). While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool ask_fusionauth_question, the action is distinct enough that a user can infer the difference.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative ask_fusionauth_question. There is no mention of scenarios, exclusions, or prerequisites. Users are left to infer when searching documentation sources is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: 'ask_fusionauth_question' is for direct Q&A about FusionAuth, while 'search_fusionauth_sources' is for searching documentation. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these functions, making tool selection straightforward for an agent.
Naming Consistency5/5
Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with clear action descriptors ('ask' and 'search') and a common domain identifier ('fusionauth'). The naming is predictable and readable, with no deviations in style or convention.
Tool Count2/5
With only 2 tools, the server feels under-scoped for a documentation assistant. While the tools cover basic Q&A and search, the domain of FusionAuth documentation likely requires more operations (e.g., browse, summarize, or filter content) to be effective, making the toolset thin and potentially limiting for agents.
Completeness2/5
The toolset is severely incomplete for a documentation server. It lacks essential operations such as retrieving specific documentation pages, listing available resources, or handling updates. Agents will face dead ends when trying to perform common documentation tasks beyond simple questions and searches.