Search the official Expo documentation and return page URLs ranked by relevance for a user query. Use read_documentation to fetch the full content of specific pages, starting from the top.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already include readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds the ranking by relevance behavior but does not mention any limits (e.g., number of results, pagination). With annotations covering the safe-read nature, a 3 is fair as it adds some but minimal extra behavior.
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 the main action and followed by a clear usage link. Zero waste.
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?
The tool is relatively simple (search returning URLs), and annotations provide safety hints. However, the description does not mention what the output looks like (e.g., list of URLs with titles) or that results are limited. Since there is no output schema, the description could have clarified the return format, but it's sufficient for an MVP.
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 coverage is 0% and only one parameter 'query' with no description. The tool description says 'user query' which adds a little meaning, but it doesn't specify format, expected length, or examples. For a simple string, this is acceptable but not sufficient to exceed baseline.
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 it searches Expo documentation and returns page URLs ranked by relevance, distinguishing it from sibling tools like expo_read_documentation which fetches content.
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?
It explicitly instructs to use read_documentation to fetch full content starting from the top, which provides a clear follow-up action. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool (e.g., for specific known pages).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.