Search across the documentation to find relevant information, code examples, API references, and guides. Use this tool when you need to answer questions about Sigrex Documentation, find specific documentation, understand how features work, or locate implementation details. The search returns contextual content with titles and direct links to the documentation pages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds value on top by disclosing the return shape ('contextual content with titles and direct links'), which annotations cannot convey, though it omits ranking/pagination behavior.
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 sentences that are front-loaded, with the core action stated first, then usage, then return behavior. Efficient, with only minor redundancy between the first sentence's content list and the second sentence's use cases.
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?
With no output schema, the description steps in to describe the return ('titles and direct links'), which is exactly what an agent needs. The remaining gap is the undocumented query parameter, but overall it is complete enough for a single-param read tool whose annotations cover safety.
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?
There is one required parameter (query) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden of explaining it. It only implies a free-text search string and gives no guidance on syntax, natural-language vs. keyword input, or filtering — insufficient compensation for the coverage gap.
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?
States a specific verb (search) and resource (documentation) and enumerates the content types returned: information, code examples, API references, guides. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling askQuestion, which is a plausible alternative for answering doc questions, so sibling differentiation is missing.
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?
Provides clear when-to-use guidance: 'answer questions about Sigrex Documentation, find specific documentation, understand how features work, or locate implementation details.' It does not, though, state when NOT to use it or name the sibling alternatives (askQuestion, getPage) that would route an agent differently.
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.
