search_topicsSearch Geotone's tracked geopolitical topics by keyword (matches name, slug, and description). Returns slugs usable with get_topic, plus each topic's current coverage stats.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Keyword, e.g. 'nuclear' or 'china' |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| meta | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| results | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / meta / properties / asOfAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Date of the latest datapoint (UTC)",
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / meta / properties / citationAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / meta / properties / pageAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Canonical geotone.news page for this result — link it when citing",
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / meta / properties / retrievedAtAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / results / items / properties / meta / properties / asOfAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Date of the latest datapoint (UTC)",
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / results / items / properties / meta / properties / citationAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / results / items / properties / meta / properties / pageAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Canonical geotone.news page for this result — link it when citing",
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / results / items / properties / meta / properties / retrievedAtAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "meta": {
+ "properties": {
+ "attribution": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "license": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "source": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "query": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "results": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "latestToneAvg": {
+ "type": [
+ "number",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "latestVolIntensity": {
+ "type": [
+ "number",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "meta": {
+ "properties": {
+ "attribution": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "license": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "source": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "page": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "slug": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "zScore": {
+ "type": [
+ "number",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "query",
+ "results"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, which are consistent with the search action. The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying matching fields and that results include coverage stats, enriching the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior.
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?
Two sentences with no fluff. The purpose and key matching behavior are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the output and linkage to get_topic are in the second. 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?
With only one required parameter and an output schema present, the description covers the search scope, matching behavior, and output utility. It explicitly mentions the returned slugs are usable with get_topic, making the tool's role and integration clear. No critical information is missing.
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% (query described), so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic detail that 'query' matches name, slug, and description, which goes beyond the schema's simple example ('nuclear' or 'china'), thus contributing meaning 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's purpose: searching Geotone's geopolitical topics by keyword, with specific matching fields (name, slug, description). It also indicates the output (slugs and coverage stats) and connects to a sibling tool (get_topic), making its role distinct from the get_* tools.
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 when a keyword-based topic search is needed, and the mention of get_topic suggests a follow-up workflow. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, though there is no other search tool among siblings.
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.