searchSearch iFun for jokes, quotes, fun facts and short videos by keyword. Returns up to 10 matches.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Language — vi (default) or en. | |
| query | Yes | Keyword or phrase to search for. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| results | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "results": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "title": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id",
+ "title",
+ "url"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "results"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a concrete behavioral constraint: 'Returns up to 10 matches.' This is useful context beyond the schema and aligns with the readOnlyHint. No contradictions exist; the added result limit justifies a score above baseline.
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-loaded with the primary purpose and scope. It includes the result limit without extraneous detail. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or padding.
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 simple two-parameter search tool with annotations covering safety and an output schema present, the description covers the essential behavior (keyword search, content scope, result limit) and requires no further explanation of return values. The agent has everything needed to call it 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%, with both parameters (query, lang) documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Per the rubric, with high coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 the verb 'Search' and the resource 'iFun', with specific content types (jokes, quotes, fun facts, short videos) and the keyword-driven nature. It is distinguishable from siblings like random_joke or joke_of_the_day, though it doesn't explicitly name them; the scope is implied rather than contrasted.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (e.g., random_joke, joke_of_the_day). It does not mention exclusions or conditions, leaving the agent to infer that keyword-based search is distinct from random retrieval. This is a clear gap.
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.