Search the web and retrieve text chunks with relevance scores. Filter by websites and time windows to find targeted information.
Search with Kimi Search Pro, returning text chunks and relevance scores.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| sites | No | ||
| text_query | Yes | ||
| time_window | No | ||
| timeout_seconds | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does 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 discloses the return shape, but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, latency, site/time filtering behavior, or what happens on timeout, which matters for a tool with a 60s timeout parameter.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the purpose and return value lead the description. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than deliberate concision.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and five undocumented parameters (including a nested object), the description is too thin for the tool's complexity. Only the coarse return type is covered; parameter behavior, constraints, and alternative-tool selection are absent.
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?
All 5 parameters have 0% schema description coverage, including the nested time_window object with start/end fields. The description explains none of them, adding no meaning beyond the bare property names.
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 ('Search with Kimi Search Pro') plus the return shape ('text chunks and relevance scores'). It does not differentiate itself from the sibling kimi_search_basic, so an agent must infer what 'Pro' adds.
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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling kimi_search_basic, which is the obvious alternative. The agent gets no criteria for choosing between the two search tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.