Find concepts by keyword or substring, including glossary aliases, and return IDs ranked by relevance for use in an MCP wiki.
Keyword search over concepts (SQLite FTS5, substring matching); returns IDs ranked by relevance. Glossary aliases are searched too (expanded_to).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| scope | No | ||
| record_miss | No | ||
| include_archived | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true), and the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: the backing engine (SQLite FTS5), the matching mode (substring), the ordering guarantee (ranked by relevance), and the fact that glossary aliases are searched via expanded_to. It stops short of noting pagination, result caps, or how the ranking is computed.
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 dense clauses with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of implementation detail. The parenthetical engine note is slightly incidental but still earns its place as a matching-behavior hint.
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 5-parameter search tool with no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description should explain the scope/filter parameters and what limit and include_archived do. It explains only the query side, leaving an agent unable to safely use four of the five inputs.
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% for 5 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails it. It conveys only query semantics (keyword/substring, alias expansion); limit, scope, record_miss, and include_archived are left completely undefined in both schema and description.
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 and resource ('keyword search over concepts') plus the return type ('returns IDs ranked by relevance'), so the agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not, however, differentiate itself from adjacent retrieval siblings like concept_list, concept_read, or graph_context, so an agent must infer which retrieval path to take.
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?
Usage is only implied by 'keyword search' — no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no alternatives named. With siblings such as concept_list, concept_expand, and graph_context offering overlapping retrieval, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.