ProdPad MCP Server

Search ProdPad

prodpad_search

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search ideas, feedback, products, and personas in ProdPad by keyword; optionally filter by entity type and paginate results.

Instructions

Search across ideas, feedback, products, and personas in ProdPad.

Args:

q (string): Search query (required)
page (number): Page of results
size (number): Results per page
type (string): Limit to one type: ideas, products, personas, or feedback

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "q": "<q>"
    },
    "name": "prodpad_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`q`	Yes	Search query text
`page`	No	Page of results
`size`	No	Results per page
`type`	No	Limit search to one entity type (default: all)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the cross-entity scope; it says nothing about result shape or pagination behavior beyond what the schema exposes.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the purpose in the first sentence, and the Args block, while largely redundant with the schema, is compact and scannable. No wasted prose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, and the description never indicates what a cross-entity search returns (mixed result types, ordering, etc.). With annotations and 100% schema coverage the basics are covered, but the return contract is left implicit.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including the type enum. The description's Args block repeats that information without adding format or syntax meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Search) and the four cross-entity resources it spans (ideas, feedback, products, personas), which distinguishes it from the many per-entity list/get siblings. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with tools like prodpad_list_ideas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to reach for a cross-entity search versus the numerous prodpad_list_* and prodpad_get_* siblings. The multi-type scope is implied by the description but no alternative or exclusion is stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.