Run full-text, idf-weighted search across a site's crawled pages to find relevant content for answering questions grounded in that site's documentation.
Full-text search over the site's pages (inverted index, idf-weighted).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| site_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 mentions the inverted-index and idf-weighting approach, but says nothing about permissions, result ordering, pagination, rate limits, or what happens when a site is missing. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this is thin operational context.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted setup. The parenthetical algorithm detail is concise, though not especially useful for deciding how to call the tool.
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 three parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should do more to explain inputs and behavior. It gives only the core retrieval concept and leaves usage, parameter meanings, and operational behavior largely unspecified.
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%, so the description must compensate, but it does not define any parameter. 'Site's pages' weakly implies site_id and 'full-text search' weakly implies query, while limit is entirely undocumented 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Full-text search over the site's pages.' It clearly communicates keyword-style retrieval and even names the indexing approach, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like 'ask' or 'get_page'.
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?
The phrase 'full-text search' implies usage for keyword lookup over site pages, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over 'ask', 'get_page', or 'neighbors'. The agent must infer the selection conditions from the tool name and brief purpose statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.