Search SCSS mixins by substring across names, signatures, docs, and bodies to locate the right mixin for a given design task.
Substring search across mixin names, signatures, docs, and bodies.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| category | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't state whether search is case-sensitive, whether results are ranked or paginated, or how substring matching behaves. Only the target fields are disclosed.
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?
A single efficient sentence with zero waste, front-loading the verb and target fields.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the definition is too thin for a 3-parameter search tool. It should explain matching behavior, category filtering, and limit semantics.
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 coverage is 0%, so the schema documents nothing about query, limit, or category semantics. The description names the searched fields but provides no parameter guidance, leaving all three parameters undocumented.
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 (substring search) and the resource fields searched (names, signatures, docs, bodies). It distinguishes itself from list_mixins and get_mixin, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with the closely related search_functions sibling.
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 word 'search' implies usage over list_mixins/get_mixin, but no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are stated. An agent must infer the search-vs-enumerate distinction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.