Search Snapback's documentation for how to use it — how to format a trace, what each tool does, the failure taxonomy, auth, pricing, and errors. Free and needs no token. Call this first if you're unsure how to format a request or what a verdict means.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | max sections to return (default 3) | |
| query | Yes | what you want to know, e.g. 'how to format a trace' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds useful context with 'Free and needs no token,' covering auth and cost. However, it stops short of explicitly stating that the operation is read-only or non-destructive, and it doesn't describe output format or no-result behavior.
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?
Three tight sentences: the first states the function and scope, the second covers cost/auth, the third gives priority usage guidance. Every sentence earns its placeable and the core purpose is front-loaded.
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 two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage timing, cost, and auth. It could mention return format or empty-result behavior, but the schema's 'limit' description already hints at section-based results, so the gaps are minor.
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 100%, and both query and limit already have meaningful descriptions in the schema. The description's example ('how to format a trace') loosely maps to the query parameter but does not add any new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.
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 says 'Search Snapback's documentation' — a specific verb plus resource — and enumerates concrete content areas (trace formatting, tool behaviors, failure taxonomy, auth, pricing, errors). The purpose is unmistakable and visually distinct from the operational sibling tools like diagnose_trace or get_verdict, even though no sibling is named.
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?
'Call this first if you're unsure how to format a request or what a verdict means' is an explicit when-to-use trigger. It doesn't name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the guidance is clear enough for an agent to prioritize this tool in the appropriate situation.
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.