Medusa.js Documentation MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

search_docs

Find and retrieve relevant Medusa.js documentation sections by searching with specific topics and customizing result limits.

Instructions

Search Medusa.js documentation for specific topics

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_docs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes	Search query for finding relevant documentation
`limit`	No	Maximum number of results to return (default: 5)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action of searching, but omits traits such as whether the operation is read-only, what format results are returned in (e.g., snippets, links), or any rate limits. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior beyond the core action.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, achieving high conciseness. However, it is slightly underspecified and could incorporate more information without losing brevity.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides the minimum viable information. It tells the agent what the tool does, but lacks details about the return value format, the scope of documentation searched, or any behavioral expectations. This is adequate but leaves gaps.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('query', 'limit') having descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate. No further value is provided.

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

Purpose5/5

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 'Medusa.js documentation', and the purpose 'for specific topics'. It distinguishes from sibling tools 'get_section' and 'list_sections' which focus on retrieving specific sections or lists, not full-text search.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or context for when searching is appropriate compared to using get_section or list_sections.

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

Deploy Server