search_recordsQuery HEPData records with native search syntax. Get paginated results for datasets and tables, enabling data discovery and access.
Search HEPData records using HEPData's native search syntax.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| size | No | ||
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the read-only, open-world, idempotent nature. The description adds only that it uses 'native search syntax', which hints at complexity but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination, result limits, or how the syntax works. It does not contradict the annotations.
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 sentence with no filler words. It is appropriately concise and front-loads the core function without extraneous detail.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description is too vague to guide correct invocation. It does not explain the search syntax, pagination behavior, or how to combine the parameters. An agent without prior knowledge of HEPData would struggle to use the tool correctly.
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 compensate for parameter meaning. It does not explain query, page, or size at all. The mention of 'native search syntax' implies query syntax but provides no details on how to construct the query or what the parameters control.
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 clearly states a specific verb ('Search'), resource ('HEPData records'), and the method ('native search syntax'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_record by focusing on searching rather than retrieving a specific record.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or reference to siblings such as get_record or list_tables, leaving the agent to infer its place in the workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.