flowforge-mcp

flowforge_search_knowledge

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search a knowledge base by semantic meaning or exact text and optionally limit results to one assistant's linked documents to retrieve relevant passages.

Instructions

Search the knowledge base by meaning (semantic) or exact text.

Use semantic search (default) to find conceptually relevant passages, or set full_text=true for literal keyword matches. Optionally scope to one assistant's linked documents.

Args: params: query (required), optional agent_id, full_text flag, and limit.

Returns: JSON/Markdown with the matching passages/documents.

Error Handling: Returns "Error: ..." on failure.

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": {
      "params": "<params>"
    },
    "name": "flowforge_search_knowledge"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`params`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds real but modest context: the default-mode behavior and the "Error: ..." failure convention. It says nothing about ranking, cost, latency, or pagination, so it adds some value beyond annotations but not a lot.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, then cleanly sectioned into Args, Returns, and Error Handling, which is easy to scan. Some content duplicates the schema's own field descriptions and the annotations, so it is not waste-free.

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?

An output schema exists, so the Returns line is a sufficient pointer, and annotations cover safety and idempotency. The description supplies the one thing structured fields don't state plainly: the semantic-vs-grep decision, plus the error string convention and the required/optional split.

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?

The top-level schema exposes a single opaque "params" object with a reported 0% top-level coverage, so the description's Args block does useful work by naming query, agent_id, full_text, and limit. However, it omits document_ids, context_lines, case_sensitive, and response_format, and it repeats mode semantics that the nested property descriptions already state verbatim.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ("Search the knowledge base") and immediately distinguishes two operating modes, semantic vs. exact text, which tells an agent what the tool does without opening the schema. It does not name any sibling (e.g., flowforge_list_documents or flowforge_manage_knowledge_bases) to sharpen the boundary, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Guidance at the mode level is explicit: semantic is the default for "conceptually relevant passages," and full_text=true is for "literal keyword matches," plus optional scoping to one assistant's documents. What is missing is any statement about when to pick this tool over sibling retrieval tools like list_documents or manage_knowledge_bases.

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

Deploy Server