search_articlesSearch published articles by title, description, tags, and shelf. [no key]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| shelf | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | ||
| results | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "query": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "results": {
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "results"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the scope of matched fields, which is modest added context, but the trailing '[no key]' fragment is cryptic and its meaning (no auth key? no cache key?) is never explained.
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 core sentence is tight and front-loaded, which is good. However, the dangling '[no key]' token occupies space without conveying a clear meaning to the agent, so not every part of the definition 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?
With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and annotations cover safety. Still missing for a 3-parameter search tool: default/max behavior of limit, how multiple fields are combined, and why to choose this over list_articles or find_articles_for_claim.
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%, so the schema only shows types and length limits. The description partially compensates by naming the fields the query matches against (title, description, tags) and by calling out 'shelf', which maps to the shelf parameter, but it says nothing about the limit parameter or result ranking.
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 published articles') and scopes the search to title, description, tags, and shelf. It does not distinguish itself from the nearby list_articles or find_articles_for_claim siblings, so an agent still has to guess which article-retrieval tool fits.
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 the searchable fields but never says when to use this rather than list_articles, get_article, or find_articles_for_claim. No prerequisites, exclusions, or selection conditions are given.
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.