Retrieve art decision records by filtering on status, style ID, or style version to find specific decisions.
Search for art decision records with optional filters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | Filter by status | |
| style_id | No | Filter by style ID | |
| style_version | No | Filter by style version |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that this is a read-style search with optional filters, but it does not describe result behavior, default scope when no filters are supplied, pagination, limits, or ordering. No contradiction exists, but meaningful transparency is missing.
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 sentence with no filler; the action and resource are front-loaded. This is appropriately concise for a tool whose parameters are fully documented in the schema.
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-optional-parameter search, the schema covers parameters, but the description omits return-value expectations and does not differentiate from art.memory.get_decision. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the agent must infer what a successful response looks like and how broad the search can be.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage: each filter parameter is self-documented with a clear enum or type. The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'optional filters', so the schema correctly carries the parameter semantics.
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 action ('Search') and resource ('art decision records'), and notes that filters are optional. It is distinguishable from the sibling art.memory.get_decision by the search/list framing, though that distinction is not explicit.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use find_decisions versus get_decision, find_rejections, or other memory search tools. The description only states what the tool does; no context, exclusions, or alternatives are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.