Search icons for GCP, AWS, Azure, and other brands by query. Use the returned exact title as the product when building draw.io architecture diagrams.
Busca iconos (GCP, AWS, Azure, marcas...). Usa el título exacto devuelto como 'product'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the result includes a title to be used as 'product', which is a useful trait, but it omits details about search matching behavior, result limits, error cases, or any constraints. It adds some context but remains thin.
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 short, efficient sentences. The purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence provides a key usage hint. There is no fluff or repetition, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.
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?
The tool is simple (2 params, 1 required), and an output schema exists, so the description need not detail return values. It covers the purpose and a key usage instruction, but lacks guidance on query formulation and limit semantics, which are needed for correct invocation. It is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.
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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It does not mention 'query' or 'limit' at all, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from names and types. The instruction about the returned title pertains to output, not input parameters, leaving a significant gap in guidance.
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 action and resource: 'Busca iconos' (search icons), with examples of categories (GCP, AWS, Azure, brands). It distinguishes from sibling search_shapes by specifying icon types, and the instruction to use the returned title as 'product' adds functional clarity.
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 a specific instruction on how to use the returned title as 'product', but it does not explain when to prefer this tool over alternatives like search_shapes, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions. Usage is implied by the name and purpose rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.