mcp-ebook-read

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

search_in_outline_node

Search within a specific chapter or outline node to answer focused reading questions. Use after identifying the relevant section with get_outline.

Instructions

Search within one outline node or chapter. Use this for focused reading questions after get_outline identifies the relevant section.

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": {
      "doc_id": "<doc_id>",
      "node_id": "<node_id>",
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_in_outline_node"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes
`top_k`	No
`doc_id`	Yes
`node_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.7Jul 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only states 'Search within one outline node' without disclosing output format, pagination, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a search tool.

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?

The description is two concise sentences with front-loaded key information. No wasted words; every sentence serves a purpose.

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 tool has an output schema (mentioned but not provided) and 4 parameters, the description is minimal. It provides usage context but lacks details on behavior, parameter descriptions, and return structure, leaving gaps for a search tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (query, top_k, doc_id, node_id). It adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 action 'search' and the resource 'one outline node or chapter'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_outline' by specifying focused reading after identification.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly says to use this for focused reading questions after get_outline identifies the relevant section, providing clear usage context. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the guidance is helpful.

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