Search tracked vendor documents by vendor name or document type. Returns matching records with status (validated, received, missing, overdue) and expiry dates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Text to match against vendor name or document type (case-insensitive; industry shorthand like "COI" or "med card" works). Omit to list everything. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It is transparent enough for a search tool: 'Search' plus 'Returns matching records' clearly communicates a read-only query, and the description adds useful details about the returned statuses and expiry dates. It does not mention pagination or ordering, but those are not critical for a simple search tool.
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 with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then provides the key output details. Every sentence 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?
For a simple tool with one optional parameter and a clear schema, the description plus schema is sufficiently complete. It explains what is searched, how matching works, what is returned, and the relevant status/expiry fields. No critical information is missing for 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage and fully explains the query parameter, including case-insensitivity and shorthand support. The tool description largely repeats the parameter semantics without adding significant meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb ('Search'), a specific resource ('tracked vendor documents'), and the search dimensions ('by vendor name or document type'). It also summarizes the return values, which makes the purpose immediately distinguishable from the sibling tools that focus on exporting, summaries, expiring documents, or missing documents.
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: use this to search vendor documents by name or type. However, it does not explicitly explain when to prefer it over the specialized siblings such as list_missing_docs or get_expiring_docs, especially since this tool can also return status/expiry information. Some routing guidance would improve clarity.
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.