gitbook_search_organizationSearch content across an entire organization. GitBook REST: GET /orgs/{organizationId}/search.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | 1-based page number. | |
| limit | No | Results per page. | |
| query | Yes | The full-text search query (required). | |
| organizationId | Yes | The organization id. |
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, so the description adds only marginal behavioral context: the REST GET endpoint and the org-wide scope. It does not disclose pagination behavior, result format, or any other operational traits. With annotations present, this is acceptable but not rich.
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 with no wasted words. The main action and scope are front-loaded, and the REST endpoint is a compact implementation detail. Excellent conciseness.
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?
Given the tool's relative simplicity and the read-only annotation, the description is mostly adequate. However, it does not explain what content is searched (e.g., pages, docs) or what the response contains, which could leave an agent uncertain about the tool's output. Since there is no output schema, this gap prevents a higher score.
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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate here.
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's verb ('Search') and resource ('content across an entire organization'). It distinguishes from sibling 'gitbook_search_space' by emphasizing the organization-wide scope, making it unambiguous which tool to use for org-level searches.
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 phrase 'across an entire organization' clearly implies the use case of searching all content in an org, contrasting with space-specific searches. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tool (gitbook_search_space) or state when not to use it, so it lacks an explicit exclusion.
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 resource and action (e.g., get vs list vs search, change-request vs page vs space), so there is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between tools.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with a uniform gitbook_ prefix (e.g., gitbook_list_spaces, gitbook_get_page, gitbook_create_change_request). The naming is predictable and systematic.
14 tools is slightly high but still reasonable for a documentation platform API covering resources like spaces, pages, change requests, collections, organizations, and search. Each tool has a clear purpose, though the set feels a bit broad with several read-only operations.
The set is heavily read-focused and lacks essential write operations for pages and spaces (create, update, delete), which are core to GitBook's purpose. It does cover change-request lifecycle partially (create, list, update) but omits merge/delete and page editing, leaving noticeable gaps.