WikiPeatia MCP Server

Corpus Search

corpus_search

Search the full Ray Peat corpus of articles, books, interviews, newsletters, and forum posts by keyword or phrase. Filter results by author, series, or document type.

Instructions

Full-text search across the entire Ray Peat corpus.

Covers articles, books (Library), interviews (audio transcripts), newsletters, forum posts, email Q&A and wiki pages. Results include excerpt, doc_id, doc_type, author, series, source_url, audio_url and timestamps (for interviews).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Max results (max 50)
`query`	Yes	Search terms (e.g. 'PUFA detoxification', 'cortisol', 'milk protein')
`author`	No	Optional author filter, comma-separated for several (e.g. 'Ray Peat' or 'Ray Peat,Georgi Dinkov (Haidut)'). See corpus_list_authors for exact names.
`series`	No	Optional series/collection filter (e.g. 'Ask the Herb Doctor', 'Generative Energy'). See corpus_list_series.
`doc_type`	No	Optional type filter: article, book, interview, newsletter, forum_thread, email_qa, blog_post, wiki_article, lecture, thesis, patent... (see corpus_list_doc_types)
`ray_only`	No	Optional scope: true = Ray Peat's own materials only; false = whole corpus (all authors); omit for the server default scope (Ray Peat-focused).
`include_extended`	No	true = include extra fields (audio_url, timestamps...)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the corpus scope and the shape of returned fields (excerpt, doc_id, timestamps, etc.). However, it says nothing about permissions, result ordering, pagination, or behavior when a query matches nothing — meaningful gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by coverage and return fields. Little waste, though the return-field list is somewhat redundant given the output schema exists.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The corpus scope and covered doc types are well covered, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained (the description lists them anyway). It is nearly complete for a search tool; only guidance on sibling selection is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter including limits, filters, and scope flags. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the correct baseline of 3.

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

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Full-text search across the entire Ray Peat corpus', and enumerates the covered document types. The phrase 'full-text' implicitly contrasts with semantic/ask siblings, but it does not name them, so sibling differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies a corpus-wide keyword search and lists coverage, which gives some usage context, but it never says when to pick this over corpus_semantic_search, corpus_ask, or raypeat_search_articles. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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