Search past advice to ensure consistent guidance. Retrieve prior recommendations before answering recurring topics to avoid contradictions.
Search past advice to ensure consistency. Always check before giving advice on topics you've covered before.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search term or topic to look for in past advice |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Search' and 'check' imply a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that nothing is modified or describe what the returned matches look like. This is adequate for a simple lookup but not deeply transparent.
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?
Two short, purposeful sentences. The operation is stated first, and the practical usage rule follows immediately. There is no filler 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?
The tool is simple: one required parameter, no output schema, no nested objects. The description provides both the operation and the trigger condition for use. It could mention what the search returns, but the core information needed to invoke it correctly is present.
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 100%, and the query parameter already has a clear description ('Search term or topic to look for in past advice'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, 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 clearly states the verb ('Search'), the resource ('past advice'), and the purpose ('ensure consistency'). It stands apart from the sibling tools, which are all ingest/add/update/log operations, making this the unambiguous retrieval tool.
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 gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Always check before giving advice on topics you've covered before.' It does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, but since no sibling offers similar search functionality, the usage context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.