Search a construction project document library by keyword to locate relevant meeting minutes, reports, and specifications; scope results to a project and limit the number returned.
Full-text search over the project document library (minutes, reports, specs).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| project_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds no behavior beyond purpose: nothing about result ranking, truncation, the default limit of 5, or what happens when project_id is omitted (search across all projects?).
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 economical sentence with the resource and content types front-loaded and zero filler. It is not padded, but the terseness edges toward under-specification given three undocumented parameters.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is legitimately absent. Still, for a search tool with an optional project filter and a limit parameter, the description should say whether omitting project_id searches all projects — a material behavioral decision left unstated.
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 carries the full burden of explaining the three parameters, and it says nothing about any of them. The optional project_id scoping and the limit default of 5 are the semantically important ones, and neither is clarified anywhere.
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 plus resource ("Full-text search over the project document library") and even enumerates the content types searched (minutes, reports, specs). It is clearly distinct from read_document, though it does not name that sibling explicitly to state the search-vs-fetch distinction.
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?
"Full-text search" implies keyword lookup when an identifier is unavailable, which implicitly routes the agent away from read_document. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of how this differs from search_issues, and no note about scoping to a project.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.