arcadeops_search_docsRecherche par nom et description dans le catalogue public ArcadeOps. Aucun contenu privé ni appel réseau secondaire.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Termes recherchés, par exemple OAuth, OpenAPI, CLI ou sandbox. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds two behavioral details: the search covers only public content and no secondary network call is made. This gives useful context about side effects and scope without contradicting the 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?
Two short, purposeful sentences with no filler. The primary function is stated first, followed by relevant constraints, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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?
For a simple single-parameter search tool with rich annotations, the description is nearly complete: it states what is searched, the public scope, and the lack of network side effects. It does not describe the return format, but the tool name and absence of an output schema make the return semantics reasonably inferable.
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 input schema already documents the single 'query' parameter fully with examples. The description adds semantic meaning by stating that the query searches both name and description fields, which is not explicit in the schema.
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 a specific action: searching by name and description in the public ArcadeOps catalog. It distinguishes the resource and scope, but does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like arcadeops_discover or arcadeops_get_document.
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 implies when to use the tool (for searching public documentation) and adds a boundary (no private content), but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to prefer this over its siblings or when not to use it.
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 role: discover provides the top-level public resources and endpoints, search_docs queries the catalog, and get_document resolves a specific document's canonical link and MIME type. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tool names share the arcadeops_ prefix and use snake_case, with a consistent verb-based style. The only minor inconsistency is that discover lacks an explicit object noun while get_document and search_docs both include one.
Three tools is well-scoped for a public discovery server: one for overview/discovery, one for searching the catalog, and one for retrieving a specific document's metadata. Each tool earns its place without redundancy.
The tool set covers the core discovery workflow: discover available resources, search the public catalog, and resolve a specific document link. A minor gap is the lack of a direct list-all-documents endpoint, but search by name and description addresses most practical discovery needs.