search-archivesSearch digitized historical postcards and printed materials from Nanukamachi-dori. Returns slug, name, category, date, and short description.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of results (1-50). | |
| query | No | Free-text keyword. | |
| locale | No | Content language. Defaults to Japanese. | ja |
| category | No | Archive category. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned field list, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about ranking, empty-result behavior, or how query matching works across locales.
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 sentences, zero boilerplate, with the data source stated first and the return shape second. Every clause carries information.
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?
With no output schema, listing the returned fields is exactly the right compensation, and the collection scope is stated. What is missing is any hint of result ordering or how to page beyond the 1-50 limit.
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 every parameter including the two enums is already documented; baseline 3 applies. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, such as whether query matches names, categories, or descriptions.
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?
States a specific verb (Search) and a specific resource (digitized historical postcards and printed materials from Nanukamachi-dori), plus the returned fields. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from get-archive, which an agent must infer returns a single record.
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?
No when-to-use guidance and no reference to any sibling tool. The reader must infer that this is the discovery path and get-archive is the detail path; nothing in the text says so, and there is no note on when to prefer category filtering over free-text query.
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.