search_itemsFuzzy-search Warframe item data — warframes, weapons, mods, and more — by name. Returns name, type, category and description. Keyless.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Item name to search for, e.g. "Excalibur", "Soma Prime", "Serration". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "query": "Excalibur"
+ },
+ {
+ "query": "Soma Prime"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations: 'Fuzzy-search' indicates approximate matching, 'Keyless' indicates no authentication required, and it lists returned fields (name, type, category, description). These are useful nuances not present in the schema or 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys all essential information without filler. It earns every word, making it easily scannable for an AI agent.
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 search tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fully complete. It states the input (item name), the matching behavior (fuzzy), the access requirement (keyless), and the output fields, leaving no significant gaps.
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 one parameter 'query', well described by the schema. The description adds the 'Fuzzy' and 'Keyless' context, which clarifies how the query parameter is interpreted and that no additional key is needed. This complements the schema without being redundant.
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 a specific verb ('Fuzzy-search'), a resource ('Warframe item data'), and scope ('by name'). It also enumerates item categories and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on Warframe items, which no other sibling does.
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 provides clear context on what the tool does ('Fuzzy-search Warframe items by name', 'Keyless') and what it returns, which implies when to use it. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but none of the sibling tools offer similar functionality, so no conflict exists.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.