searchSubstring search across page titles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| language | No | ||
| platform | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | Number of matching commands | |
| query | Yes | Search query used (lowercased) | |
| commands | Yes | Matching command entries |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "query": "file"
+ },
+ {
+ "limit": 5,
+ "platform": "osx",
+ "query": "compress"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "commands": {
+ "description": "Matching command entries",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "language": {
+ "description": "Languages in which page is available",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "description": "Command name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "platform": {
+ "description": "Platforms where command is available",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "name",
+ "platform",
+ "language"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "count": {
+ "description": "Number of matching commands",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "query": {
+ "description": "Search query used (lowercased)",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "query",
+ "count",
+ "commands"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety profile is covered. The description adds the substring search behavior but no additional details like pagination or result format. Adequate but minimal extra value.
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 one concise sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, the extreme brevity sacrifices valuable detail.
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 4 parameters, an output schema, and many sibling tools, the description fails to provide sufficient context. Missing parameter explanations, usage scenarios, and differentiation from other search tools makes it incomplete.
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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 4 parameters (query, limit, language, platform). This forces the agent to guess their meaning, which is inadequate.
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 'substring search across page titles', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_within' which likely searches within page 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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_within' or 'page'. The agent must infer usage from the description alone, which lacks explicit context.
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.