copilot-studio-friction-index

Search friction records

search_frictions

Read-only

Ranked search over the Copilot Studio Friction Index. Exact error-code/message hits rank first, then title, alias, summary and symptom-checklist matches (solution bodies are NOT searched — an empty result means no record is indexed under these terms, not that the register lacks a fix). Use this when the user describes a Copilot Studio problem, symptom or keyword. Returns compact records with slug, status, severity, last-verified date and the citable powerleap.ch URL.

Tool call template

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_frictions"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Maximum results.
`query`	Yes	Error string, symptom or keywords, e.g. "flow times out after 100 seconds".
`locale`	No	Output and citation language. English fallback when a current German translation is unavailable.	en
`status`	No	Optional status filter: "open" (problem exists), "mitigated" (reliable workaround), "fixed" (resolved and re-verified), "regressed" (was fixed, is back).
`category`	No	Optional category filter.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 13, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / locale

Added value: +{
+  "default": "en",
+  "description": "Output and citation language. English fallback when a current German translation is unavailable.",
+  "enum": [
+    "en",
+    "de"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedJul 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description's real contribution is the search-scope and result-interpretation contract: which fields are indexed, that solution bodies are excluded, and that emptiness means 'not indexed under these terms,' not 'no fix exists.' That is meaningful beyond the annotations, though it says nothing about result volume or how ties are broken.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and ranking, then scope caveat, then return shape. The parenthetical about empty results is the only digression and it earns its place by preventing a false negative conclusion.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 5-parameter read-only search with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies everything missing: ranking semantics, indexed-field scope, negative-result interpretation, and the shape of returned records including the citable URL. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret it is absent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by describing what the query string actually matches against (error codes, messages, titles, aliases, summaries, symptom checklists), which tells an agent how to phrase input. It does not further clarify locale fallback or status-filter behavior beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Ranked search over the Copilot Studio Friction Index') and immediately defines the ranking order (exact error-code/message, then title, alias, summary, symptom checklist). The explicit scope limit ('solution bodies are NOT searched') separates it from list_frictions and get_friction_record without needing to name them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a clear trigger: 'Use this when the user describes a Copilot Studio problem, symptom or keyword,' and warns against the most likely misreading of an empty result. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., lookup_error for a bare error code, get_friction_record for the full fix), so an agent still has to infer sibling routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All copilot-studio-friction-index tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?