One-call semantic-style search across CCPEDIA's community sources at once: forum, mailing lists, blog, and GitHub discussions. Canton-specific. Use when you want to scan everything written by humans (not docs/code) for a topic.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max hits per source (default 5). | |
| query | Yes | Free-text query. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds 'semantic-style' and scope of sources, which align with annotations. No contradictions, but doesn't elaborate on other behavioral aspects like rate limits or pagination beyond schema.
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 sentences that front-load the core purpose and usage context with no wasted words.
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 (2 parameters, no output schema), the description provides adequate context about sources and use case. Could mention return format but not critical for selection.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (query and limit). Description adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema (e.g., 'semantic-style' and scope), but baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already sufficiently documents parameters.
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 explicitly states it performs semantic-style search across multiple community sources (forum, mailing lists, blog, GitHub discussions) and is Canton-specific. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that search specific sources.
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?
Explicitly states when to use ('scan everything written by humans for a topic') and implies not for docs/code. Provides clear context relative to other search tools.
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.