Free-text/semantic search over Indian-American events (incl. past, for history). offset pages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| state | No | ||
| offset | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / offsetAdded value: +{
+ "default": 0,
+ "title": "Offset",
+ "type": "integer"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the search is free-text/semantic, includes past events, and supports offset pagination. However, it omits behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, result sorting, or handling of empty queries, leaving gaps.
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 extremely concise—one sentence plus a code snippet. It front-loads the core purpose and every phrase adds value. No unnecessary words or redundancy.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, one required, output schema exists, many siblings), the description is incomplete. It covers purpose and pagination but lacks parameter semantics, search behavior details (fuzzy vs exact), error handling, and permission requirements. The output schema partly mitigates return value omission, but other gaps remain.
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%, yet the description only minimally addresses one parameter (`offset` via '`offset` pages'). It fails to describe the required `query` parameter or optional filters (`city`, `state`, `limit`), which is insufficient for a 5-parameter tool with no schema descriptions.
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 verb (search) and resource (Indian-American events), includes scope (free-text/semantic, includes past events for history), and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_indian_events and other search_*_by_text tools by specifying the event type.
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 for free-text or semantic search over Indian-American events, including past ones, suggesting when to use this compared to get_indian_events. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives like search_all, and it lacks exclusions.
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.