WikiPeatia MCP Server

Raypeat Search Articles

raypeat_search_articles

Search Ray Peat article titles by keyword to quickly find relevant writings on thyroid, diabetes, progesterone, and other topics.

Instructions

Keyword search across Ray Peat article titles.

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": "raypeat_search_articles"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes	Term to look for (e.g. 'thyroid', 'diabetes', 'progesterone')

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only lookup but says nothing about result limits, pagination, ranking, or case sensitivity, and never states what happens if no title matches.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler that communicates verb, resource, and scope immediately.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool is a simple one-parameter search. However, with no annotations and no sibling differentiation, the definition leaves the agent unable to confidently choose it over semantic or list alternatives.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'query' parameter is fully documented with examples, so the baseline is 3. The word 'keyword' in the description hints at exact-term matching rather than semantic similarity, adding mild value but no syntax or formatting detail beyond the schema.

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 (search) and resource (Ray Peat article titles) with a clear scope qualifier ('titles', not full text). It does not name or contrast with the obvious sibling corpus_semantic_search or raypeat_list_articles, so the agent must infer the distinction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to prefer keyword search over corpus_semantic_search or corpus_ask, no exclusions, and no note that only titles (not article bodies) are matched beyond the implicit 'titles' phrase. The agent is left to guess the retrieval strategy.

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