huly_search_documentsSearch document titles by keyword, with optional body content search to include full-text matches.
Search document titles by keyword. Set searchContent=true to also search document bodies (slower, since each document is fetched individually).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | Keyword (case-insensitive) | |
| teamspaceId | No | ||
| searchContent | No | Whether to search document content as well |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the performance impact of content search, but omits other behaviors such as case-insensitivity (though that is in the schema), default behavior without searchContent, how results are returned, or any permission requirements. The single behavioral note is insufficient.
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?
Two sentences with no fluff. The primary purpose is stated first, and the optional behavior is introduced efficiently. Every word earns its place.
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?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to mention the teamspaceId parameter for scoping searches, the limit parameter for pagination control, or what the return format looks like. An agent cannot fully understand the tool's capabilities without inspecting the schema further.
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?
The schema describes query as case-insensitive and searchContent as a boolean, but the description adds meaningful context about searchContent's performance implication (each document fetched individually). However, it adds nothing about limit or teamspaceId, which lack schema descriptions, leaving those parameters under-documented. It partially compensates for the 50% schema coverage.
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 clearly states the verb 'Search' and the resource 'document titles', and distinguishes it from sibling tools like huly_list_documents by implying a keyword-based search rather than a simple listing. It also mentions the optional body search, adding specificity.
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 provides guidance on when to use searchContent=true (to search bodies) and notes the performance tradeoff, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like huly_list_documents or huly_get_document. Usage context is partially implied but not fully clarified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.