Search the Medius documentation and return matching pages. Use the returned id with the fetch tool to read a page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search terms. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| results | Yes |
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It does not disclose search behavior such as result ordering, pagination, filters, or authorization requirements, leaving significant gaps for a search tool.
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 extremely concise: two sentences with no wasted words. First sentence conveys purpose, second gives usage guidance.
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 simplicity (1 parameter) and presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details like result limits or format, which would be helpful for a search tool.
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 basic description for the 'query' parameter. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond 'search terms', not addressing format or constraints.
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 it searches Medius documentation and returns matching pages. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'search_docs', which likely has a similar purpose.
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 explicitly advises using the returned 'id' with the 'fetch' tool, providing a clear usage pattern. It does not, however, specify when not to use this tool or mention alternatives.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct: list_pages and search/search_docs serve different entry points, and fetch/get_page retrieve by id vs path. However, the presence of two search tools and two retrieval tools could cause mild confusion, though descriptions clarify intended workflows.
Naming is inconsistent: mix of verb-only (fetch, search) and verb_noun (get_page, list_pages, search_docs). No consistent pattern, and 'fetch' vs 'get_page' feel arbitrary.
With 5 tools, the server covers essential doc operations (list, search, read). Slightly more than minimal, but reasonable for a documentation server.
Core operations are covered: listing all pages, searching, and retrieving full content. Minor gap: no tool for browsing by section or getting metadata only, but generally complete.
