searchSearch published Persian or English terms across Sarmad courses, products, prices, public guides and blog articles. Returns stable ids and citable page URLs; use fetch for the full public text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
| 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?
Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent), the description discloses that the tool returns stable IDs and citable URLs and that it does not return full text. This adds useful behavioral context.
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, front-loaded with the action and scope, and ends with a practical pointer. No unnecessary fluff or repetition.
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 search tool, the description is complete enough: it states what is searched, what is returned, and how it relates to the sibling tool 'fetch'. It does not include output schema or error handling, but that is not critical for basic usage.
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?
The input schema only defines 'query' with type and length constraints, with no description. The description implies the query is a term to search for, but does not clarify matching behavior or language specifics, providing only minimal compensation for the schema's lack of detail.
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 action ('Search published Persian or English terms across...') and the target resources (courses, products, prices, guides, blog articles). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool 'fetch' by explicitly directing full-text retrieval to that tool.
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?
It provides a clear pointer to use 'fetch' for full public text, which implies search is for finding IDs and URLs. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use 'get_price' instead of search, so guidance is not exhaustive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.