qvac_searchSearch the QVAC index by keyword to locate relevant documentation, capabilities, compliance, track briefs, hackathon info, and judge feedback for on-device AI projects.
Keyword filter over the QVAC index (e.g. 'rag', 'transcription', 'fine-tune', 'models').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keyword | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the filtering action and gives examples, but does not disclose return format, whether results are paginated, case sensitivity, or side effects. For a search tool, this is minimal disclosure.
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, focused sentence that leads with the core action and resource, followed by illustrative examples. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.
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 simple single-parameter search tool, the description covers the basic purpose and parameter meaning, but it omits return-value expectations or any note about read-only nature. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, this is a moderate gap for an agent deciding how to use the result.
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?
The input schema has a single string parameter 'keyword' with 0% coverage. The description adds value by explaining that the keyword is used to filter the QVAC index and providing example values, which helps the agent understand the expected input. However, it does not specify format constraints or possible invalid values.
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 clearly states a specific verb ('filter') and a resource ('QVAC index'), with concrete keyword examples. It distinguishes the tool's purpose as a search/filter operation, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings like qvac_index or qvac_fetch.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies a keyword-search context but does not mention exclusions or direct users to other tools for listing or fetching. With several sibling tools, this lack of routing guidance is a notable gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.