minimax_searchSearch across sessions for matching titles and message content, returning highlighted, focused context to help locate relevant conversations.
跨会话全文检索标题与消息内容，返回高亮聚焦上下文。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | 检索关键词别名 (同 query) | |
| limit | No | 返回结果数量(默认10以节省Token) | |
| query | Yes | 检索关键词 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that results come back as highlighted focused context; it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or what happens when no match is found.
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 tight sentence with the scope and return behavior front-loaded and no filler. It is perhaps too terse for the tool's role as the entry point for cross-session lookup, but nothing is redundant.
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 three-parameter read-only search with full schema coverage and no output schema, this is minimally adequate. The gaps are ordering/pagination behavior and how the highlighted context is structured, which an agent would need to interpret results correctly.
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 query, the q alias, and limit (default 10, max 100, token-saving rationale) are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no meaning beyond it, which matches the baseline 3 for fully covered schemas.
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+resource: full-text search over titles and message content across sessions, plus a note on the return shape (highlighted focused context). It is distinguishable from search-adjacent siblings like minimax_find_text and minimax_list_sessions, though it does not explicitly name them.
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 only usage signal is the scope word '跨会话' (cross-session), which implies it searches globally rather than within a single session. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to alternatives such as minimax_find_text or minimax_read_session.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.