Search reviews and known subjects
searchSearch reviews plus matching reviewed or unreviewed subjects. Search is lexical rather than semantic: for an ordinary question try one discriminating keyword at a time, then exact subject-name follow-ups and fetch every returned review. Continue with next_cursor until has_more is false before claiming exhaustive retrieval. Never merge records by display name: group and compare using subject_id and subject_type because unrelated subjects may share a name. Known subjects include immediate subject-to-subject connections so a location, organisation, variant or sibling discovered earlier can inform recommendations without being misrepresented as reviewed. For a location-based recommendation, do not stop when the target-town query has no direct result: also search the relevant subject type without a text query, follow reviewed subjects to parent organisations, and inspect each parent's official branch directory for the requested location before concluding there is no useful connection. Search returns collection_coverage on collection subjects and connected parents. Only coverage_status=complete permits a conclusion that a location or member is absent; partial or unknown coverage must be reported as uncertainty. Routine chain expansion does not require user confirmation. Search is lexical rather than semantic. For an ordinary user question, try one discriminating keyword at a time and retry with a subject-type-only search when necessary. A keyword hit is only a discovery step: search each candidate's exact subject name, then fetch every returned review before answering so reviews that omit the original keyword are not missed. Retrieval is deliberately softer than canonical naming. Search using the user's wording first, then try known aliases, canonical type names and useful broader/related types when needed. A search miss for one label is not evidence that the underlying subject or concept is absent. Stable IDs, not preferred labels, determine identity. Use bounded best-first traversal: inspect only the current level, rank a small set of plausible branches, follow the strongest while retaining fallback candidates, and backtrack if that branch gives an inadequate classification or retrieval result. Stop at the most specific adequate existing type or when bounded evidence justifies a new type; do not enumerate the complete taxonomy.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| cursor | No | Opaque next_cursor returned by the preceding identical search. | |
| subject_type | No | ||
| include_related | No |