Queries the MCP server with a search string, returns up to a specified limit, and optionally includes detailed output.
Detailed description of what this tool accomplishes, its expected input, and its output format.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of items to return | |
| query | No | Search query or target input string | |
| options | No | Optional execution configuration |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The placeholder text does not disclose any side effects, permissions, rate limits, or return behavior. It merely states that a description exists, offering no substantive information about what the tool does or what happens when called.
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 generic sentence, but it is not concise in the sense of conveying useful information—it is under-specified and content-free. It is a placeholder template, not an efficient communication of tool behavior. This resembles the under-specification case rather than true conciseness.
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 nested object and three parameters, yet no output schema and no description of purpose or return format. The placeholder leaves the agent completely in the dark about what the tool does, what it returns, or how it relates to siblings. The definition is fundamentally incomplete for any real usage.
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 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters (limit, query, options). According to the rubric, a high coverage baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no value beyond the schema, but it does not need to compensate since the schema is thorough.
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 is a generic placeholder: 'Detailed description of what this tool accomplishes, its expected input, and its output format.' It provides zero actual information about the tool's function, resource, or scope. It is neither a specific verb+resource nor a restatement of the name; it is simply a template sentence that fails to convey any purpose.
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 its siblings (echo, get_system_info). The description contains no context about intended scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent has no basis to decide whether to select this tool over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.