Run spec.search across both ECMA-262 and ECMA-402 in one call and interleave hits by score. Each hit is tagged with the spec it came from. Use it when you don't know which spec defines a symbol. search_steps also matches algorithm step text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| search_steps | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the dual-spec search and tagging, but omits details on pagination, result format, or any side effects. The behavior is typical for a search tool.
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?
Two concise sentences with no superfluous content. The key action and use case are 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?
No output schema is provided, and the description does not specify the result structure beyond 'each hit tagged'. Missing details on limit behavior, error cases, or how results are ordered beyond 'by score'. For a tool that aggregates across specs, more completeness is needed.
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 0%. The description only explains search_steps behavior; query and limit are left without any additional meaning beyond their names. For a required param like query, more context would be valuable.
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 it runs spec.search across two specs and interleaves results, tagging each hit. It distinguishes from sibling spec.search by specifying the dual-spec scope.
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?
Explicitly advises use when the defining spec is unknown. Mentions search_steps for algorithm step matching, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct function: clause operations vs. proposal queries vs. spec utilities vs. test262 search. Even the two search tools have clear differences (single vs. cross-spec).
All tools follow a consistent `domain.action` pattern using lowercase and snake_case for the action (e.g., `clause.get`, `spec.global_search`, `test262.search`). No mixing of conventions.
17 tools is appropriate for a comprehensive TC39 spec browser. Each tool serves a specific need without redundancy, covering clauses, proposals, grammar, symbols, tables, and test262.
The toolset covers the full lifecycle of exploring TC39 specifications: retrieving clauses, searching, cross-referencing, diffing editions, inspecting grammar and symbols, and querying proposals and test262.