NinFenz Content Gate

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Search library and docs

library_search

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search the library catalog and repository docs to find ranked entries, entry IDs for reading, or document and README titles. Use it for library lookups, not exact module or protocol metadata.

Instructions

Search the library catalog and repository docs for query, returning ranked catalog entries plus matching document titles. Use it to find an entry ID for library_read or to locate a doc or package README; do not use it for exact module or protocol metadata (registry_search / spec_list). Catalog matching is case-insensitive and relevance-ranked; document hits match the filename or H1 title as a case-sensitive substring.

The combined list is capped by limit (1–50, default 10), and there is no offset or next-page parameter. Catalog hits come first, so a full catalog page can hide document hits; an empty query returns the first page of document hits only, and no matches yields an empty list.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Maximum combined hits to return (default 10); catalog and document hits share the cap.
`query`	Yes	Search text; catalog hits are relevance-ranked and document hits match filename or H1 title.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`items`	Yes	Ranked catalog entries followed by matching documents, truncated to limit.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Oct 18, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so safety is covered; the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: case-insensitive relevance-ranked catalog matching vs case-sensitive substring doc matching, catalog-first ordering that can hide doc hits, and the empty-query / no-match behaviors.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight paragraphs: purpose and routing first, then edge-case behavior. Every sentence carries distinct information (matching rules, cap semantics, ordering hazard, empty-query result) with no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, return values need not be enumerated, and nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing: routing, matching semantics, cap behavior, and pagination absence are all covered.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics the schema lacks: the 1–50 cap is shared between catalog and document hits, and there is deliberately no offset/next-page parameter. This meaningfully clarifies query and limit behavior beyond the field descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (search) plus the two resources searched (library catalog and repository docs), and explicitly names the sibling tools it is not (library_read is the follow-up consumer, registry_search/spec_list cover exact metadata). An agent can route without opening another schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit when-to-use (find an entry ID for library_read, locate a doc or package README) and when-not (exact module or protocol metadata, pointing at registry_search / spec_list). Nothing is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server