Search Zendesk data including tickets, conversations, and help center content. Use query parameters to filter, sort, and paginate results.
Search across Zendesk data
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number for pagination | |
| query | Yes | Search query string | |
| sort_by | No | Field to sort by | |
| per_page | No | Number of results per page (max 100) | |
| sort_order | No | Sort order (asc or desc) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds no further behavioral context such as pagination limits, result shape, or whether the search spans multiple object types. There is no contradiction, but the description contributes nothing beyond the annotations.
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 a single short sentence with no filler or redundant content. It is efficiently front-loaded, though it errs on the side of being too thin rather than 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?
For a generic search tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It omits supported resource types, query syntax expectations, default pagination behavior, and the distinction from search-related siblings, so an agent would struggle to invoke it 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 the schema already documents all parameters including query, pagination, and sorting. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 states a verb and a broad resource ('Search across Zendesk data'), so it is not a tautology. However, it does not specify what kinds of Zendesk data are searched or how this differs from sibling tools like search_articles, leaving the purpose vague.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. The sibling list contains search_articles and export_tickets, but the description says nothing about which search scope or use case each covers.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.