Full-text search across all posts on the BSV social graph. Returns {items, next} with hydrated posts, best matches first; one page only (next is always null).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | Search query. | |
| limit | No | Max results (default 20, max 100). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionPrevious value: -"Max results (default 20)."New value: +"Max results (default 20, max 100)."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape ({items, next}), result ordering (best matches first), and pagination limit (one page only, next always null), but omits authentication, rate limits, or explicit read-only confirmation.
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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and then return/pagination details. No wasted words; each clause adds useful information about what the tool does or what it returns.
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 low-complexity search tool with a fully documented schema, the description covers the key gap left by the absence of an output schema by explaining the {items, next} shape and one-page limit. It does not explain usage relative to siblings, but that is a usage-guideline gap rather than a completeness failure for calling the tool correctly.
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 q and limit are fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics such as query syntax or default/max behavior, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 ('Full-text search') and resource ('all posts on the BSV social graph'), with clear scope. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like peck_user_posts and peck_feed by searching all posts, but does not name an alternative explicitly.
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?
Provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Usage is implied by the tool name and description (keyword search), but it does not route the agent among siblings like peck_user_posts, peck_feed, or peck_trending.
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.