Search the Fonto XML documentation using full-text search. Returns results ranked by relevance with titles, descriptions, and slugs. Best for looking up a concept, API name, or feature by keyword.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search term, e.g. 'documentsManager' |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| results | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds value by stating that results are ranked by relevance and include titles, descriptions, and slugs, which goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.
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 concise, well-structured sentences. No wasted words. Front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately useful details.
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 search tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description fully covers purpose, return format, and usage context. No gaps given the tool's complexity.
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 coverage is 100% with a descriptive parameter name and example. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation. No additional clarification needed for the single required parameter.
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?
Description clearly states the tool searches Fonto XML documentation via full-text search, notes ranking by relevance, and specifies return fields (titles, descriptions, slugs). It explicitly differentiates from siblings like get_fonto_page and list_pages by focusing on keyword lookup.
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?
Provides clear when-to-use guidance ('best for looking up a concept, API name, or feature by keyword'), but does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternative tools for different needs. The context of sibling tools indirectly clarifies boundaries.
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 purpose: fetching a page by slug, filtering pages by metadata, and full-text search. There is no overlap in functionality.
All three tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_fonto_page, list_pages, search_fonto_docs. The naming is predictable and clear.
With only 3 tools, the set is minimal but covers the core documentation needs (retrieve, list, search). It feels slightly thin but is still appropriate for a focused documentation server.
The three tools provide a complete workflow for accessing documentation: search, browse, and retrieve. A minor gap might be lack of a tool to get all categories or hierarchical navigation, but the existing tools are sufficient for most use cases.