Search the tc39/test262 conformance suite from its indexed front-matter. query AND-matches whitespace tokens (case-insensitive) across each test's description + path; esid prefix-matches the front-matter esid. Returns ranked hits (path, GitHub url at the indexed SHA, esid, description, features, flags), capped at limit (default 20). Supply at least one of query / esid.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| esid | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| query | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description discloses return fields (path, GitHub URL, esid, description, features, flags), result capping, and matching semantics. It does not mention any side effects, which is acceptable for a read 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?
The description is two sentences long, front-loading the core purpose, then efficiently packing parameter behavior and return details. No wasted words.
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?
The description provides enough context for an AI to correctly select and invoke the tool, covering input requirements, matching logic, and output structure, especially given no output schema.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by detailing the meaning of query (AND-match whitespace tokens case-insensitively), esid (prefix-match), and limit (default 20). All three parameters are well explained.
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 specifies 'Search the tc39/test262 conformance suite from its indexed front-matter,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like spec.search which search the ECMAScript specification.
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?
It explicitly states that at least one of query/esid must be supplied, and explains the matching behavior for each parameter. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools, though the context implies test262-specific usage.
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.