Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
linuxdo-mcp

linuxdo-mcp

by Guyungy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

format_search

Search Linux.do forum topics and retrieve results as formatted Markdown, including title, URL, and snippet, ready for direct display.

Instructions

同 search，但直接返回拼好的 Markdown（标题+URL+摘要列表），客户端可原样展示。

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "format_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo
pagesNo
queryYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool pre-formats results into Markdown and is intended for direct display, which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects, pagination behavior, or any operational constraints beyond formatting.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single concise sentence that front-loads the core comparison with search and then states the key output behavior. Every word adds value and there is no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is sufficient for basic tool selection and the output schema likely covers return structure, but it omits parameter semantics and any behavioral caveats. For a tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, this is a noticeable gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate for parameter meaning. It does not explain query, page, or pages at all; it only refers to search. The query parameter is inferable, but page/pages semantics remain undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states what the tool does: it behaves like search but returns ready-to-render Markdown with title, URL, and summary list. This explicitly distinguishes it from the raw search sibling, so an agent can understand its unique purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It names the sibling alternative (search) and describes the differentiating use case: use this when you want display-ready Markdown rather than raw results. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement, but the contrast with search provides clear decision context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools