search_articlesFind published documentary articles. Scheduled posts and private previews are excluded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| language | No | en |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| source | No | GuideDoc public information only; full films require an eligible subscription and territory |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / language / constAdded value: +"en"Input schema / properties / language / enumRemoved value: -[
- "en",
- "ca",
- "es"
-]Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that scheduled posts and private previews are excluded, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or auth expectations.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately following with the scope constraint. No filler or redundant restatement of the name.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the description leaves four undocumented parameters and no differentiation from the many sibling search tools. For a filtered search tool with 0% schema coverage, this is too thin to reliably drive correct invocation.
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 0% across four parameters (page, limit, query, language), and the description explains none of them. It does not clarify what query matches, whether language is fixed to English, or how paging works, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 clear verb+resource ('Find published documentary articles') and adds a scope qualifier that scheduled posts and private previews are excluded. However, it does not distinguish this from near-identical siblings such as search, search_documentaries, or get_article, leaving the 'articles vs documentaries' boundary ambiguous.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite a crowded family of overlapping search_* tools. The exclusion note describes result scope, not when to select this tool over search or search_documentaries.
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.