Search EarthTekniks knowledge base to find information about company, platforms, projects, and vision. Returns ranked snippets with confidence indicators.
Search EarthTekniks KB (company, platforms, projects, vision fundamentals). Returns ranked snippets + confident flag.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| top_k | No |
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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful return-format context ('ranked snippets + confident flag') that is not present elsewhere. However, it does not explain ranking behavior, the meaning of the confidence flag, pagination, or any read-only constraints.
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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds return-value detail. Every word 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?
There is no output schema, so the description's mention of return data is valuable. However, with no annotations, no parameter semantics, and no usage guidance relative to several similarly named siblings, the description is not fully complete for an agent to reliably select and invoke the tool correctly.
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 mention either parameter. 'Query' is inferable from the word 'Search', yet 'top_k' is completely unexplained in terms of its effect on results, default behavior, or acceptable values.
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 ('Search'), a clear resource ('EarthTekniks KB'), and the scope of that resource ('company, platforms, projects, vision fundamentals'). It also indicates what is returned ('ranked snippets + confident flag'), making the tool's core purpose clear. However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling 'search_knowledge' tool, which has a very similar name and likely overlapping function.
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 description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and it does not mention any alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'search_knowledge', 'search_lookups', and 'get_reference', the agent is left to infer when this tool is the right choice rather than being directed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.