search_title
Search Forkast documentation by document title
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Title search text |
forkast-mcp-docs
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Search', which implies a read operation, but does not disclose return format, pagination, case sensitivity, or any other behavioral traits. The description adds minimal transparency beyond the verb itself.
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 concise sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the verb and resource, and every word contributes to the meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 1-parameter tool, the description covers the basic purpose. However, it does not explain what the tool returns or how it differs from 'search_query', which leaves a gap for an agent choosing between tools. Given no output schema, a bit more context would be valuable.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% (query is described as 'Title search text'). The description adds a slight nuance by stating 'by document title', which confirms the query parameter maps to a title. This matches schema semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description states a specific verb ('Search'), a resource ('Forkast documentation'), and a scope ('by document title'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling 'search_query', which presumably searches content, and from 'get_doc', which retrieves a specific document.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_query'. The description implies usage for title-based searches but does not provide context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.
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
A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: retrieving all docs, retrieving one by ID, searching full-text, and searching by title. There is minimal overlap between search_query and search_title, but the descriptions make the distinction clear.
Naming Consistency4/5
The names follow a verb-first pattern (get_all_docs, get_doc, search_query, search_title), but they are not perfectly uniform: get_all_docs and get_doc use object-oriented names, while search_query and search_title use parameter-oriented names. The inconsistency is minor and does not hinder readability.
Tool Count5/5
With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for documentation retrieval. The count is within the ideal range and each tool serves a distinct core function without unnecessary redundancy.
Completeness5/5
The server covers the essential read-only operations for documentation: fetching all docs, retrieving one, full-text search, and title-based search. No critical gaps are apparent for a documentation retrieval use case.