Find accurate answers from bundled official Alpine.js documentation by submitting a query about concepts, directives, or APIs.
Search the latest bundled official Alpine.js documentation using qmd BM25 search.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | Alpine.js concept, API, directive, or question to search for. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the search is BM25 relevance-based and targets the latest bundled docs, but does not disclose what the results look like (snippets, file paths, relevance scores), how many results come back, or whether it is a safe read operation.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the verb, resource, and search method with zero wasted words. Every element earns its place.
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?
Adequate for a simple two-parameter search tool, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description should state what results are returned and ideally hint that a search result can be followed by read_alpine_doc. The missing return-format guidance leaves an agent guessing how to consume the output.
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 coverage is 50% — the query parameter already has a useful description ('Alpine.js concept, API, directive, or question'), and the limit parameter is self-evident from its name, type, and default. The description adds no parameter detail but also needs little; the schema carries the load adequately.
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 (search), a precise resource (latest bundled official Alpine.js documentation), and the method (qmd BM25 search). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling read_alpine_doc — one finds content, the other retrieves a specific document.
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?
No guidance on when to search versus when to read. The natural workflow — search to discover relevant docs, then read_alpine_doc to view a specific one — is only implied by the sibling name and the tool's verb, never stated. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.