Ranked free-text search across instruction mnemonics, categories, and opcode hex. Returns hits with a matched_on field.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max hits. | |
| query | Yes | Search text. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. Description adds that search is ranked and results include `matched_on` field, which is helpful for understanding output. No additional behavior like pagination is mentioned, but it's adequate for a simple read-only 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 sentences, no wasted words, immediately conveys purpose and key output field. Ideal length.
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 2 parameters and readOnly annotation, the description provides necessary context: what is searched, that results are ranked, and the key output field. Could mention result limiting via limit param, but schema covers that. Overall sufficient.
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%, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by specifying the fields searched (mnemonics, categories, opcode hex) and that results are ranked, which enhances understanding of the query parameter beyond its schema description.
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?
Clearly states it performs ranked free-text search across specific fields (mnemonics, categories, opcode hex) and returns hits with a `matched_on` field. Differentiates from sibling tools like instruction_get and instruction_list by being a search tool.
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?
Implies usage for searching by text but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like instruction_list. Could mention that it's for flexible text queries rather than exact matches or listing.
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 aspect of WebAssembly: instructions (get/list/search), proposals (list), spec sections (get/list/search), version info, and types. No overlapping purposes.
All tools use consistent snake_case with verb_noun pattern: instruction_get, instruction_list, instruction_search, proposal_list, section_get, section_list, spec_search, spec_version, type_get.
9 tools is well-scoped for a WebAssembly reference server, covering instructions, specs, proposals, types, and metadata without being overwhelming.
Covers core retrieval and search for instructions, specs, proposals, and types. Minor gaps like no dedicated proposal get or type list, but the set is sufficient for typical exploration tasks.