Locate worldbuilding entities in a Kanka campaign by querying with a text string. Specify the campaign ID and query text to retrieve matching characters, locations, and other records.
Search entities
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | ||
| campaignId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Search entities' only implies a read operation; it does not state whether the search spans all entity types, how results are returned, whether pagination exists, or that campaignId scopes the search. It does not contradict any annotations, but it provides almost no behavioral context.
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?
Two words is maximally terse, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. The description functions as a stub and does not earn its place by conveying useful information.
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?
With two required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It gives no indication of which entities are searchable, what the response looks like, how to interpret q, or any search behavior such as pagination or campaign scoping.
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%, and the description does not mention q or campaignId at all. It adds no meaning beyond the bare schema types, leaving the agent to guess what q means, how search matching works, and why campaignId is required.
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 uses a clear verb ('Search') and a resource ('entities'), but 'entities' is undefined and could mean any or all of the many entity types present in the sibling tools. It is not a tautology, but it lacks the specificity needed to distinguish the exact scope of the search.
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 on when to use this tool rather than list_campaigns, list_characters, or one of the other list tools. No conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool references are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.