Search anime and manga characters by name to view paginated summaries with names, native names, images, and favourites.
Search anime & manga characters. Searches anime and manga characters by name. Returns character summaries (name, native name, image, favourites), paginated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | 1-based page number, default 1 | |
| query | Yes | Search text | |
| per_page | No | Results per page, default 10, max 50 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.0v1.6.0v1.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the returned fields (name, native name, image, favourites) and that results are paginated, which is useful, but says nothing about read-only nature, auth needs, rate limits, or matching behavior (fuzzy vs exact).
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 first sentence restates the tool name and the second ('Searches anime and manga characters by name') largely repeats it, which is wasteful. The return-field and pagination information is front-loaded and useful, but roughly half the text is redundant.
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 with no output schema, listing the returned fields is a genuine plus. But the absence of annotations and of any sibling differentiation leaves an agent without enough to confidently route between this and anime_character / anime_title_characters.
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 page, query, and per_page are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, matching rules, or default/limit details beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 anime & manga characters ... by name'), so the operation is immediately clear. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like anime_character, anime_title_characters, or manga_search, which an agent could easily confuse it with.
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, prerequisites, or mention of alternatives. The description never says when to use name search versus fetching a specific character (anime_character) or listing a title's characters (anime_title_characters).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.