Searches notes by full-text query across titles, bodies, and tags, returns best matches first with bracketed snippets, and supports optional tag filtering.
Full-text search over titles, bodies and tags, best match first. Matching words are wrapped in [brackets] in the snippet. Optionally filter by one tag.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| query | 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavioral detail in the ranked ordering and the [brackets] highlighting convention in snippets. It stops short of covering pagination/limit behavior or what happens with zero matches. No contradiction with 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?
Two short sentences, no filler; the core purpose and result ordering come first and the snippet-format detail follows. Every clause carries information an agent needs.
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?
Output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the ranking plus bracket highlighting fill the main behavioral gap. The omission of limit semantics and any routing guidance versus siblings are the only remaining holes for a read-only three-parameter search tool.
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: it usefully clarifies that 'query' spans titles, bodies and tags, and that 'tag' accepts only one value (not a list). It says nothing about 'limit', leaving one of three parameters unexplained in both schema and description.
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?
States a specific verb (full-text search) plus the fields searched (titles, bodies, tags) and the result ordering (best match first), which clearly separates it from get_note. It never names a sibling or states that it takes a free-text query rather than an identifier, so differentiation is implied rather than 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?
The closing line 'Optionally filter by one tag' gives a usage hint for one parameter, but there is no guidance on when to search versus fetching a known note by ID or listing tags, and no exclusions. Usage is inferable from the name and purpose statement only.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.