Keyword search across recent Asha News articles. Cite source URLs and Asha article/story URLs when present.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | Search term, e.g. "palestine", "iran". | |
| limit | No | Max results (default 10). |
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 shoulders the burden. It adds a useful behavioral instruction (cite source URLs and Asha article URLs when present), which informs the agent's output behavior. However, it does not disclose search behavior details like recency definition, result ordering, or potential limitations.
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 exceptionally concise, consisting of two short sentences. Every sentence adds value: one describes the core function, and the other provides actionable guidance about citing URLs. No fluff or redundancy.
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 simple nature of the tool (two params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is adequately complete. It states what is searched, the scope (recent), and adds a citation instruction. It could mention result format or expected output behavior, but those are less critical for a basic 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (q and limit). The description adds no extra parameter-level detail, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema already provides complete information.
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 keyword search across recent Asha News articles, using a specific verb ('search') and a clear resource ('Asha News articles'). It also adds a distinct scope ('recent') that helps differentiate it from broader sibling tools like asha_search.
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 usage context by limiting to 'recent Asha News articles,' but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. At best, the intended scope is implied rather than directly guiding tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.