Search published entities by name, domain or vertical (case-insensitive
LITERAL substring; wildcard characters are treated as text). Use this
instead of list_entities when the registry is large. The query must be at
least 3 characters. Returns at most limit matches (1-50) plus total,
the number of matching entities in the whole registry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses case-insensitive literal substring matching, wildcard-as-text behavior, the 3-character minimum, and the limit-plus-total return shape. Minor gaps remain around exact response item structure and error behavior, but the most important quirks are surfaced.
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 dense sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, the sibling comparison is placed after the core meaning, and constraints/return behavior are tucked at the end. Every sentence earns its place.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: what is searched, matching quirks, constraints, and the shape of the result count. It could be slightly more explicit about the fields present in each returned match, but it is largely complete for a low-complexity tool.
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%, so the description fully compensates: it explains what query matches against, matching semantics, min length, the limit range (1-50), and the meaning of the returned total. Both parameters are meaningfully documented beyond the raw 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?
Description clearly states a specific action ('Search published entities') with explicit dimensions ('by name, domain or vertical') and key matching semantics. It differentiates itself from list_entities by naming that sibling and explaining when this tool should be preferred.
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 says 'Use this instead of list_entities when the registry is large', giving a direct condition and an alternative. It also imposes a minimum query length, which further guides correct invocation.
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.