search「Prenica（プレニカ）」に掲載されたプレスリリースから、言葉に当てはまる箇所を抜粋つきで探します。企業名・商品名・イベント名や、業界（IT・AI、食品、美容、エンタメ、金融など）の言葉で、新商品の発表、イベントの開催、サービスの開始といった企業の発表を探せます。「セミナー 10月」「コスメ」「イベント 開催」のように探します。答えるときは、発表した会社名とページの URL を添えてください。配信のしかた、料金、掲載の基準についての質問にも使えます。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | 探したい言葉（例: 料金 支払い方法） |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| results | Yes | ||
| candidates | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / candidatesAdded value: +{
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "title": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id",
+ "title",
+ "url"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint=false/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds that results are excerpted and instructs the agent to include company name and page URL when answering, which is useful output guidance but not deep behavioral disclosure (no ranking, pagination, or scope limits).
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?
A single front-loaded paragraph that moves from purpose to query types to examples to answer conventions. It is somewhat long but every clause carries information; no filler or repetition.
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 an output schema present, the description correctly need not explain return values, and it covers the one parameter and usage context well. The remaining gap is sibling differentiation — it never mentions search_pages or how this differs from it.
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% with a single query parameter, so baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema's short hint by illustrating how composite keywords map to searches (e.g. 「セミナー 10月」「イベント 開催」), adding real semantic value for constructing the query.
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 names a specific verb (探す) and resource (press releases hosted on 「Prenica」), and clarifies results come with excerpts. It is clearly not a generic web search. However it does not distinguish itself from the sibling search_pages, leaving ambiguity about which search to pick.
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?
It gives concrete context on what kinds of queries work (company/product/event names, industry keywords) and even example query strings like 「セミナー 10月」「コスメ」, and notes it also answers questions about pricing/publication standards. But it never says when to use this over the sibling search_pages or list_pages, so routing guidance is only implied.
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.