wow-api-mcp

Search WoW API

search_api

Search World of Warcraft addon API documentation using fuzzy text matching. Find functions, events, and tables by name, system, or documentation.

Instructions

Fuzzy full-text search over API functions, events, and tables (enums/structures/constants) for a flavor. Searches names, systems, and documentation. Example queries: "C_Timer After", "unit health", "spell cooldown".

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_api"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`kind`	No	Restrict result kind	any
`limit`	No
`query`	Yes	Search terms (names tokenize on _ . and camelCase)
`flavor`	No	Game flavor: live (retail), classic, classic_era (vanilla), classic_anniversary	live

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 15, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses fuzzy search and tokenization behavior, but does not describe return format, pagination, or whether results are ordered. It implies read-only operation, but lacks depth.

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?

The description is two sentences plus examples, front-loading the core purpose. Every word adds value; no redundancy.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain result structure. It only states 'Searches names, systems, and documentation' without detailing what the response contains (e.g., list of matches, metadata). Adequate but incomplete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 75%, so baseline is 3. The description adds tokenization info and example queries beyond schema, but the schema already explains most parameters well. The added value is moderate.

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?

The description clearly states it performs 'Fuzzy full-text search over API functions, events, and tables for a flavor.' It specifies the resource categories and provides example queries, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_api or search_source.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives example queries and implies usage for searching API-related items. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or suggest alternatives like get_api for retrieving a single known function.

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

Deploy Server