search_caseSearch historical debugging cases using keywords to find resolved errors and their solutions. Diagnose current issues by referencing past fixes.
搜索历史案例
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| keywords | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 only says 'search historical cases' and does not mention what the tool returns, whether it requires keywords, pagination behavior, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.
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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks essential information and does not front-load useful constraints or usage details.
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?
The tool has a required parameter (keywords) and an optional limit, but the description provides no explanation of either. There is an output schema but it is not described, so the agent cannot predict the return format. This is completely inadequate for a tool with a required parameter.
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 explain the parameters. It does not mention keywords or limit at all. The agent has no idea what 'keywords' means or how 'limit' affects results.
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 ('historical cases'), which distinguishes it from list_cases and get_case. However, it does not differentiate it from search_code or other search tools, and it is only in Chinese without an English equivalent.
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 alternatives like list_cases, get_case, or search_code. The description merely states the action without any context on selection criteria or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.