Item Search
item_searchItem search by name.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
item_searchItem search by name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesPrevious value: -[
- {
- "query": "Reincarnation"
- },
- {
- "query": "emerald"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "query": "Idol"
+ },
+ {
+ "query": "emerald"
+ }
+]Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "query": "Reincarnation"
+ },
+ {
+ "query": "emerald"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Search results for items from Wynncraft API",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, which cover safety and non-destructive behavior. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., return format, result limits, or side effects), missing an opportunity to enhance transparency.
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 at four words, with no extraneous content. While front-loaded, it sacrifices completeness for brevity, earning a middling score for being minimally adequate.
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?
Despite an available output schema and rich annotations, the description fails to explain expected results or search behavior. With only one parameter and no param descriptions, the description is too sparse to fully inform usage, leaving gaps in completeness.
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 schema has one parameter 'query' with 0% description coverage. The description adds that the query is by name, but it does not explain format, case sensitivity, partial matching, or valid inputs. The description partially compensates but is insufficient for complete understanding.
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 'Item search by name' clearly states the verb (search) and resource (Item) with a specific filter (by name). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_within' or 'deep_research', limiting its distinctiveness.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriateness from the name alone.
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.