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 / 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=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the exact filtering mechanism (rendered HTML with <pre> or <code> blocks) and the topic matching, which goes beyond 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?
The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and follows with a concise technical filter. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity, strong annotations, and complete schema (including offset behavior description), the description provides sufficient context for a read-only filtered-list tool. It explains exactly what is filtered and the scope (forum posts), which is adequate even without an output schema.
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 provides 100% coverage of all three parameters (topic, limit, offset) with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add additional meaning or usage details for these parameters, only referring to 'topic keyword' indirectly, which is already 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 verb ('Find') and resource ('Canton/Daml code snippets in forum posts on a topic'). It further explains the filtering logic (rendered HTML contains <pre> or <code> blocks AND matches topic), which distinguishes it from generic search tools.
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?
Clear context is provided: this tool searches forum posts for code snippets on a specific topic, and the 'Canton-specific' qualifier narrows its scope. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.
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.