Search the web and return compact highlights with source URLs to ground research and verify facts from trusted sources.
Search the web with Exa and return compact, untrusted highlights with source URLs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| num_results | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that results are 'untrusted' and 'compact highlights', which is real behavioral context about output trust level and format. It does not disclose rate limits, cost, or whether results are cached.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the action and back-loads the output characteristics. No filler.
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 2-parameter read-only search tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but thin. It omits parameter guidance and any note on result count limits, which the schema alone covers only by constraint, not by meaning.
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 description must compensate. It only indirectly implies what a query does ('Search the web'), and says nothing about num_results constraints (max 10) or the minimum query length of 3.
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 (search) and resource (the web via Exa) plus the output shape. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like health, chat, or config tools, though 'forgepilot_search' would be even clearer if it named which backend it routes to.
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?
No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tooling is mentioned. The agent has no guidance on when web search is appropriate versus other forgepilot capabilities.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.