Unified search across Asha News articles, active story clusters, and published generated briefs. Use this before choosing a narrower endpoint.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | Search term, e.g. "palestine", "gold", "OpenAI". | |
| limit | No | Max mixed results (default 10). | |
| types | No | Comma-separated result families: articles, stories, generated, or all. |
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the unified nature and the 'before choosing a narrower endpoint' guidance, but does not disclose return format, pagination, or any side effects. For a search tool, this is adequate 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?
The description is two sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose and adds a single actionable usage hint. Every word earns its place.
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 moderate complexity (3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the unified scope and provides usage guidance. It could mention result ordering or default behavior, but the schema covers defaults (limit default 10).
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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds the 'unified' context and the 'before choosing a narrower endpoint' guidance, but does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 performs a unified search across three specific content types (articles, story clusters, generated briefs), which distinguishes it from narrower search tools like asha_search_articles and asha_clusters_search. The verb 'search' plus the resource scope is specific and actionable.
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 instructs to use this tool before choosing a narrower endpoint, providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools, though the sibling list implies alternatives exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.