Find messages containing a keyword across all local bot transcripts, returning up to a configurable limit. Use it to locate past conversations by topic or term.
Search across all local bot transcripts for messages containing a keyword.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results to return (default: 20) | |
| query | Yes | Keyword to search for across conversations |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it does not state how matching works (substring, whole word, case sensitivity), whether it searches user and bot messages, or how results are ordered. Only the scope ('all local bot transcripts') is disclosed, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps for a search operation.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the missing behavioral detail noted elsewhere.
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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers scope but omits match semantics and result shape. It is the minimum viable amount of information to call the tool, but not enough for the agent to predict what comes back.
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 both the 'query' keyword and 'limit' default are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the notion that the query is a keyword compared against transcripts, which is marginal beyond what the schema states – baseline 3 applies.
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 (search) and resource (messages across all local bot transcripts), with the scope 'all local bot transcripts' implicitly distinguishing it from get_transcript and read_transcript_entries, which operate on a single transcript. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.
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 description gives no when-to-use guidance and names no alternatives, so the agent must infer that keyword lookup is preferable to get_transcript or read_transcript_entries. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.