Configure typo tolerance settings in Meilisearch indexes to improve search accuracy by allowing flexible matching of misspelled queries.
Update the typo tolerance setting
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| indexUid | Yes | Unique identifier of the index | |
| value | Yes | JSON value for the setting |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description reveals nothing about required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, side effects, or what happens to existing settings. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage, this is critically insufficient.
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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core action. While lacking in content, it's structurally optimal for its length.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what typo tolerance is, what values are acceptable, what the operation returns, or any behavioral context. The agent cannot understand how to use this tool correctly based on this description alone.
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 both parameters (indexUid and value). The description adds no additional meaning about parameter usage, format expectations, or constraints beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate schema coverage without description enhancement.
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 'Update the typo tolerance setting' is a tautology that restates the tool name. While it identifies the resource ('typo tolerance setting'), it lacks specificity about what this setting controls or what 'update' entails. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-typo-tolerance' or 'reset-typo-tolerance' beyond the verb.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this operation is appropriate, or how it differs from related tools like 'reset-typo-tolerance' or 'get-typo-tolerance'. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.