Search notes, card titles, kinds, and KnowledgeBase markdown across your desk, including archived done cards flagged as archived. Use it to find keywords fast after checking the desk summary.
Search notes, card titles, kinds, and KnowledgeBase markdown. Archived done cards are included and marked archived. Prefer get_desk_summary first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pattern | Yes | Keyword to search for |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that archived done cards are included and marked archived, which is a meaningful result-set trait, but it does not describe result limits, matching behavior, or return structure.
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 three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Each sentence contributes either scope, behavioral context, or usage ordering.
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 one-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, this covers the essentials: what is searched, archived behavior, and a preferred ordering. It could be more complete by clarifying matching semantics, such as substring versus pattern matching.
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 coverage is 100%, so the lone 'pattern' parameter is already documented. The description still adds meaning by specifying the content types the pattern applies to: notes, card titles, kinds, and KnowledgeBase markdown.
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, 'Search', and enumerates the searchable resources: notes, card titles, kinds, and KnowledgeBase markdown. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling search_code_patterns tool.
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?
It includes a useful sequencing instruction: 'Prefer get_desk_summary first,' which tells the agent when this tool should be considered. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this instead of search_code_patterns or other search-like siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.