Data Platform MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

search_documents

Search cached documents and retrieve matching chunks for a query to access information from previously stored documents.

Instructions

Retrieve the most relevant cached document chunks for a query.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_documents"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes
`domain`	No
`max_results`	No
`connection_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Default
`query`	Yes
`domain`	Yes
`matches`	Yes
`message`	Yes
`connection_id`	Yes
`contract_version`	No	1.0.0
`connections_in_results`	Yes
`mixed_connections_warning`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.9.0Aug 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects, prerequisites, and behavior. It only states a read-like retrieval of cached chunks; it doesn't clarify what 'cached' means, whether connection_id is required, or any limitations. This is minimal behavioral disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence, front-loaded verb, no redundant filler. It is extremely concise, though at the cost of completeness addressed elsewhere.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, one sentence is insufficient context. It doesn't explain the relationship to indexed documents, domain filtering, or connection requirements, nor differentiate from sibling search tools. Output schema reduces the need to describe returns, but other context is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate for undefined parameters. It only alludes to 'query' and leaves domain, max_results, and connection_id unexplained. Parameter names offer some self-evidence, but the description adds little beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and identifies a clear resource ('cached document chunks') with a scoping qualifier ('most relevant', 'for a query'). It broadly distinguishes from sibling tools like search_catalog and list_indexed_documents, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as search_catalog or list_indexed_documents. The phrase 'for a query' implies a semantic search use case, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.