search_peopleSearch Star Wars characters by name. Returns name, physical attributes, birth year, gender, and homeworld URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Character name to search for (e.g., "Luke") |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | Total count of matching characters | |
| results | Yes | List of matching characters |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose read-only, non-destructive, open-world, and idempotent behavior. The description adds return fields, but this information is also available in the output schema. It does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination, result limits, or matching rules.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, resource, and result fields efficiently.
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 one-parameter search tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is adequate. It covers the core search action and return information without requiring additional detail. Minor gaps like pagination or matching behavior could be addressed but are not critical.
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%, with a clear description and examples for the query parameter. The description's phrase 'by name' simply restates the schema, adding no new semantic detail.
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 Star Wars characters by name and lists what it returns. It is distinct from sibling tools like search_within because it specifically targets people characters.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. Usage is implied by the tool's purpose: use it when you need to find character data by name. There are no exclusions or mention of siblings that might be more appropriate for other cases.
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.
The tool set mixes two unrelated domains (Star Wars and Pipeworx data services), which is initially confusing. Within the Pipeworx suite, tools like ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded are clearly differentiated, but some overlap exists (e.g., deep_research vs. compare_entities both do multi-source lookups). Overall, most tools have distinct purposes, but the domain mismatch lowers clarity.
All tools use snake_case consistently (e.g., ask_pipeworx, entity_profile, resolve_entity). The naming pattern is mostly verb_noun or descriptive_compound, which is predictable. Minor deviation: some tools start with a verb (ask_pipeworx) while others start with a noun (entity_profile), but the style is uniform.
34 tools is on the high side but not unreasonable for a data-heavy server. However, the set covers two distinct domains (Star Wars and Pipeworx), making it feel bloated. The count could be reduced by separating the domains or pruning rarely-used tools.
The Pipeworx side appears comprehensive, covering queries, profiles, comparisons, subscriptions, alerts, and memory. The Star Wars side is incomplete—it lacks tools for vehicles, species, or individual characters (only search_people exists). The overall surface has gaps in one of its two domains.