searchOpenAI ChatGPT Deep Research / Connectors search contract. Returns matching Dynamoi artists, campaigns, and Smart Links so they can be cited in a deep-research session. For regular ChatGPT chat use dynamoi_search instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| kind | No | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| message | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scoping about which entities are searched and why, but it does not clarify search behavior such as fuzzy vs. exact matching or result limits. With annotations covering side effects, a 3 is appropriate.
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-loads the tool's purpose and scope, and wastes no words. The alternative-tool mention is placed at the end without diluting the primary message.
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 single-parameter, read-only search tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description is largely complete. It covers what is searched, why, and which sibling to use instead. It loses a point because it does not address edge cases like empty results or whether queries are partial or exact matches.
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 only defines query as a string with length constraints, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds meaning by indicating the query is matched against artists, campaigns, and Smart Links, but it does not explain query format, examples, or matching semantics beyond that.
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 states a clear verb and resource: it returns matching Dynamoi artists, campaigns, and Smart Links for use in deep-research sessions. It also explicitly distinguishes this tool from dynamoi_search, so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting schemas.
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 gives explicit context: use this tool for OpenAI ChatGPT Deep Research / Connectors sessions, and use dynamoi_search for regular ChatGPT chat. This is a direct when-to-use vs. alternative-tool instruction.
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.
Most tools are cleanly separated by resource and action, and close pairs like account overview vs platform status and singular vs catalog smart-link creation are explicitly disambiguated. The main ambiguity is dynamoi_search versus the connector search tool, which both search the same entities and are distinguished only by chat vs deep-research context.
The set overwhelmingly follows a consistent dynamoi_<verb>_<object> snake_case pattern, with predictable get/list/create/update verbs. The unprefixed fetch and search connector tools are a visible but small deviation from that convention.
Seventeen tools is slightly heavy for the server's scope, especially since search/fetch partly duplicate dynamoi_search and the campaign domain is primarily read-only. The smart-link, artist, and distribution clusters each justify their tools, so it is not excessively bloated.
Smart links have create/list/get/update coverage and distribution has apply/status, but campaigns are only readable with no create/update/launch tool, despite get_campaign referencing campaign mutations. Platform connections also have status checks but no connect actions, leaving notable workflow gaps.