Search mkdshare.DEV documents by title and content. Returns documents owned by or shared with the authenticated user that match the query.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search string matched case-insensitively against document title and content |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the important scoping rule (only documents owned by or shared with the authenticated user are returned) and the search action itself, but does not mention whether results are paginated, sorted, or limited, nor does it explicitly confirm read-only behavior.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope. Every word is useful, with no redundancy or filler.
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?
The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description explains the search scope and result set. However, it does not specify the result format (e.g., list of document summaries vs full objects) or any limits, which are relevant given the absence of an output schema and annotations.
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 schema covers 100% of the single parameter with a clear description (case-insensitive match against title and content). The tool description only repeats this information ('by title and content') without adding new meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 the tool searches documents by title and content, with an explicit resource (mkdshare.DEV documents) and scope (owned or shared with user). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_documents (which lists without searching) and get_document (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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for finding documents by keyword, but does not explicitly state when to use this over list_documents or get_document. It provides no exclusions or alternative tool mentions, leaving the agent to infer from the name.
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 distinct role: document CRUD (create, get, update, archive), listing/searching, annotation create/list, and two auth helper tools. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (e.g., create_document, list_annotations, request_device_auth). The naming is uniform and predictable across both document and auth tools.
With 10 tools, the server is well-scoped for document management plus required auth flow. It covers the essential operations without being bloated or too thin.
Core document operations are covered (create, read, update, archive, list, search), but there is no hard delete or unarchive, and annotations only support create/list (no update/delete). Additionally, there is no explicit tool for sharing documents despite the mention of shared docs.
