search_emojiSearch emoji by keyword/name (e.g. "party", "money", "animal") and return matching emoji with shortcodes. Keyless, offline.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 20). | |
| query | Yes | A keyword to search. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "query": "party"
+ },
+ {
+ "limit": 10,
+ "query": "animal"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these: it notes the tool is 'keyless' (no authentication needed) and 'offline' (no network required), and describes the return format (emoji with shortcodes). There is no contradiction with 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?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the core action and examples, followed by a brief note on key features. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
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 the simplicity of the tool (two parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is complete. It covers the search function, example keywords, return type, and special characteristics (keyless, offline). No additional information is needed for correct invocation.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage and describes both parameters ('query' as a keyword, 'limit' with default). The description adds concrete examples ('party', 'money', 'animal') and hints at the output structure (emoji with shortcodes), which enriches meaning beyond the schema alone. Not quite a 5 because the schema already captures essentials.
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 emoji by keyword/name and returns matching emoji with shortcodes. It is specific about the verb ('search'), resource ('emoji'), and scope ('by keyword/name') with examples. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'emoji_lookup', the purpose is unmistakable.
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 implies usage for simple emoji searches via keyword and mentions it is keyless and offline, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'emoji_lookup' or any alternatives. The context is clear but lacks exclusionary or comparative guidance.
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.