Search JSFX, ReaScript, and ReaWrap APIs by function name or description to retrieve relevant reference details and prevent redundant token usage.
Search for functions across JSFX, ReaScript, or ReaWrap APIs
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api | Yes | Which API to search | |
| limit | No | Maximum number of results (default: 10) | |
| query | Yes | Search query (function name, description, etc.) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and does not mention return format, result limits, ordering, or whether results are aggregated or API-specific. This is a minimal disclosure.
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 short sentence that front-loads the verb and object with no filler. It earns its place as a purpose statement, though it sacrifices informative richness for brevity.
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?
For a simple three-parameter search tool, the description leaves notable gaps: no distinction from get_function_info, no mention of what the results look like, and no indication of whether it searches one API at a time (per the schema) or across all simultaneously. The missing return-value information is especially relevant since there is no output schema.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of the API names merely restates the schema enum and adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide.
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 clear verb ('Search') and resource ('functions') across three named APIs that match the schema enum. It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling get_function_info, so it stops short of a 5.
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 is given on when to use this tool versus get_function_info, nor are there exclusions or alternative suggestions. The only implied usage is that it searches broadly across APIs, which is insufficient for routing an agent to the correct sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.