Search Chiikawa episodes by words, scenes or feelings in any language (e.g. 'Hachiware cries', '草むしり検定'). Episodes whose title or summary contains the words come first, then ones close in meaning.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | How many to return (default 10, max 20). | |
| query | Yes | What to look for. | |
| locale | No | Language of titles, summaries and names. ja is the original; other languages only include translated episodes. Default ja. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does usefully disclose the ranking behavior (lexical matches before semantic near-matches), which is real behavioral context. It omits return shape, whether a relevance score is included, and any pagination/limits beyond the schema's max of 20.
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, no filler; the core capability is front-loaded and the ranking rule follows as supporting detail. Nothing redundant with the schema is restated.
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 three-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers capability, query style, language scope, and result ordering. Only the shape of returned results is unaddressed, which is a minor gap.
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% and the locale enum is fully documented in the schema, so the description needn't repeat it. The phrase "in any language" loosely reinforces locale but adds no syntax or format detail for query or limit beyond what the schema already states.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Search Chiikawa episodes") plus the searchable dimensions (words, scenes, feelings) and language scope, with concrete example queries. This clearly separates it from get_episode, latest_episodes, and get_arc without naming them.
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 examples imply when the tool fits (fuzzy/topical queries) and the description says word matches rank first, but it never states when NOT to use it or points to the alternative for a known episode ID or for browsing recent episodes. Usage is inferable but not explicit.
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.