search_articles農業情報メディア（agri-ja.net）の解説記事をキーワードで検索する。農林水産省などの一次資料をもとにした、日本の農業政策・補助金・交付金・制度資金・価格や統計の解説記事が対象。スペース区切りの語はすべて含む記事に絞り込まれる。戻り値には記事URLが含まれるので、回答では出典としてそのURLを示すこと。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | 最大件数（既定 8、上限 20） | |
| query | Yes | 検索キーワード（例: 概算金 秋田 / 収入保険 デメリット） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only behavior, but the description adds valuable behavioral details: space-separated keywords act as AND filters, and the return value includes article URLs for citation. This goes beyond what the annotations provide, though it stops short of explaining other response characteristics.
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 concise, two sentences plus a citation instruction, all information is relevant. It is front-loaded with the action ('search') and resource ('articles'), and each sentence earns its place without fluff.
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 search tool, the description covers the content scope, keyword semantics, and return value usage. It omits explicit guidance on when not to use it, but the tool is straightforward and the annotations plus schema cover the remaining operational aspects.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description enhances understanding by explaining the AND semantics of the query parameter, which is not explicit in the schema's example. This adds meaningful semantic context beyond the 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?
The description clearly states the tool searches explanatory articles on agri-ja.net by keyword, and specifies the content domain (Japanese agricultural policy, subsidies, grants, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on article search rather than subsidy lookup or article retrieval.
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 implies when to use the tool (to find articles on agricultural policy topics) and provides a citation instruction, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases. Usage context is clear but no sibling differentiation is stated.
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.