Search Preact documentation across multiple repositories and packages to find API details, guides, and related content for specific queries.
Query Preact documentation from multiple repositories.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | The search query for the Preact documentation | |
| repository | No | Which repository to search in (default: preact) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. Beyond stating that it queries documentation, it does not disclose whether the search is keyword or semantic, how results are returned, whether it is read-only, or any rate/auth constraints.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter query tool.
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?
For a simple query tool with only two parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it omits what kind of results are returned or any operational context that would help an agent invoke it confidently.
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 schema already documents both the query string and the repository enum with its default. The description adds no further parameter meaning, syntax, or format details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 gives a specific verb (query) and resource (Preact documentation) and indicates a multi-repository scope. It is clear enough to distinguish from reading a single README or listing repositories, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with the sibling tools.
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 when-to-use guidance is provided. It does not explain when to choose this tool over get_preact_readme or list_preact_repositories, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.