search_needs【何时用】用户想定向找「有没有人在找 X」时——「有没有人想找设计合作」「谁在找出海经验交流」。比 list_needs_feed（推荐流）更适合带明确关键词的检索。
【机制】标题/详情关键词 + need_embedding 向量混合检索（RRF 融合），只出在架需求（与信息流可见性口径一致）。返回完整需求卡（含作者 canOffer）。
【组合链】命中 → get_need 看详情 → contact_need 接洽拿 conversationId → send_message 开聊。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | 搜索查询，自然语言或关键词 | |
| limit | No | 返回条数，默认 20 |
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 已声明 readOnlyHint=true、idempotentHint=true、destructiveHint=false，安全画像完整。描述在此基础上补充了有意义的机制细节：标题/详情关键词 + need_embedding 向量混合检索（RRF 融合）、只出在架需求（与信息流可见性口径一致）、返回完整需求卡（含作者 canOffer）。这些行为信息超出了 annotation 和 schema 能提供的范围。
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?
描述采用三个带标签的段落（何时用/机制/组合链），信息密度高且结构清晰易扫读。「何时用」置于最前，符合 front-loaded 原则。组合链段落虽超出单工具描述范畴，但对 agent 的后续调用路径有实际指导价值，不算冗余。
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?
对于只有 2 个参数、schema 全覆盖、annotations 丰富的只读搜索工具，描述已覆盖使用时机、检索机制、可见性过滤、返回内容以及下游工作流（命中 → get_need → contact_need → send_message）。虽无 output schema，但描述已说明返回「完整需求卡」，整体对 agent 正确调用已足够完整。
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 覆盖率为 100%，q 和 limit 均在 schema 中有完整描述（q 为自然语言或关键词，limit 有范围与默认值），因此基线为 3。描述中的查询示例（设计合作、出海经验交流）对 q 的语义有轻微强化作用，但未添加 schema 之外的结构性或格式性信息，符合高覆盖率下的基线评分。
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?
描述以「搜需求」这一具体动词+资源开头，并用两个查询示例（「有没有人想找设计合作」「谁在找出海经验交流」）明确了工具的用途。同时明确区分了 sibling list_needs_feed（推荐流），指出本工具更适合带关键词的定向检索，agent 无需打开 schema 即可判断职责边界。
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?
「【何时用】」段落直接给出了使用条件——用户想定向找「有没有人在找 X」，并明确对比了替代工具 list_needs_feed（推荐流），说明带明确关键词时应选本工具而非推荐流。这是显式的 when 与 alternative 说明，没有任何留给推断的空间。
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 has a clearly documented purpose, often with explicit 'when to use' guidance and cross-references, making the vast majority easy to tell apart. A few clusters (get_my_brief, get_my_positioning, get_my_work, get_my_dispatch) and data-overlapping get_my_card vs get_my_profile require careful reading, but descriptions are detailed enough to prevent serious misselection.
The overwhelming majority follow snake_case verb_noun conventions (create_product, update_need, list_my_signups). Minor deviations include noun-only feed names (personalized_feed, random_feed), inconsistency between 'prefs' and 'preferences' in notification tools, and a mix of update_* and set_* for mutations, but the pattern remains predictable overall.
137 tools is an extreme mismatch for any MCP server, far exceeding the 50+ threshold for a score of 1. Even with a broad multi-domain platform, this volume makes tool selection and navigation impractical and heavily burdens the agent's context window.
The surface covers full lifecycles for needs, products, activities/signups, conversations, collaboration goals/tasks, dispatch, profile/onboarding, and supporting resources like companies, parks, policies, and ratings. Deliberate omissions (no user-post creation, no organizer profile editing via agent) are explicitly documented, so core workflows have no obvious dead ends.