search_faqMediawork's published FAQ, grouped by category. With a query, returns matching questions and their answers; without one, returns every question so you can pick which to search for.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Matched against both questions and answers | |
| locale | No | Two-letter language code (en, fr, es, pt, it, de, nl, pl, th, hi, ko, ja). Defaults to English. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that results are grouped by category, that queries match both questions and answers, and that omitting the query returns all questions. This adds value beyond the input schema, though it does not detail matching logic or response structure.
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-loaded with purpose, and every phrase adds value: 'grouped by category', the query behavior, and the no-query fallback. No unnecessary 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?
For a simple FAQ search tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main use cases (with and without query) and clarifies the resource scope. It could be slightly more complete by noting that it should be used instead of generic search for FAQ questions, but current description is adequate.
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% (both 'query' and 'locale' have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description adds marginal context by explaining the no-query behavior for 'query', but does not provide additional meaning for 'locale' beyond the schema's language code and default.
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 the tool searches Mediawork's FAQ, with specific behavior for queries (returns matching questions and answers) and without (returns all questions). This distinguishes it from generic sibling tools like 'search' by naming the specific resource (FAQ) and adding contextual detail about grouping.
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?
The description conveys clear context: it is for searching Mediawork's published FAQ, and it explicitly describes the no-query behavior, which helps the agent decide when to use it (e.g., to browse all questions). However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like the generic 'search' tool or state when not to use it.
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.