search_digimonSearch the Digimon API by name (partial match) and list Digimon creatures. Omit name to list all. Returns id, name, and image for each match. Keyless.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Partial Digimon name to search for. Omit to list all Digimon. | |
| page | No | Zero-based page number (default 0). | |
| limit | No | Max results per page (default 20, max 100). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "name": "Agumon"
+ },
+ {
+ "limit": 50,
+ "name": "Digi",
+ "page": 0
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that it is 'keyless' (no authentication required) and mentions return format, providing useful context beyond annotations.
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?
Three sentences, no redundant information. The core purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence adds value: search capability, listing behavior, return fields, and authentication requirement ('keyless').
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?
Given three parameters, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what the tool does, how to use it, what it returns, and that no key is required. Minor omission of sorting or error handling, but acceptable for a simple search tool.
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 100% and descriptions for each parameter are already adequate. The description repeats 'partial match' which is in the schema, adding no new semantic value. Baseline score 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 tool searches the Digimon API by partial name match and lists all if name is omitted. It specifies return fields (id, name, image), distinguishing it from sibling get_digimon which likely retrieves by exact ID.
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 explains when to use (search by partial name or list all) but does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives like get_digimon for exact lookups. Implicit context is present but not comprehensive.
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.