Find Canton/Daml code snippets in forum posts on a topic. Filters forum_posts where the rendered HTML contains <pre> or <code> blocks AND matches the topic keyword. Canton-specific.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max rows (default 5). | |
| topic | Yes | Topic keyword. | |
| offset | No | Skip this many before returning, for paging past the limit. The response states the full count and echoes the offset used. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / properties / offsetAdded value: +{
+ "default": 0,
+ "description": "Skip this many before returning, for paging past the limit. The response states the full count and echoes the offset used.",
+ "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "integer"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them – the AND-combination of code-block presence and topic match – but does not say how the keyword is matched (case sensitivity, substring vs token) or that results only come from forum posts already fetched.
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, front-loaded sentences with zero filler: the first states purpose, the second states the filtering mechanism and domain scope. Nothing is repeated from the schema.
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 read-only, three-parameter, no-output-schema search tool, the definition is nearly complete; the schema even documents that the response echoes the full count and offset for paging. The only gap is that the description never describes the returned snippet/posts shape or ordering.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies; topic, limit (default 5, max 15), and offset/paging are all documented in the schema. The description adds only that topic drives a keyword match, not the matching semantics.
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 names a specific verb+resource ('Find Canton/Daml code snippets in forum posts') and scopes it to a topic keyword, which clearly separates it from generic search tools. It does not name a specific sibling alternative (e.g. search_community), so it stops short of full differentiation.
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?
Usage is implied by the filter logic ('rendered HTML contains <pre> or <code> blocks AND matches the topic keyword') and the 'Canton-specific' note scopes it to that ecosystem. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not guidance versus semantically similar siblings like search_community, semantic_search, or search.
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.