bowrd_search_entriesSearch pins by keyword across titles, descriptions, and source URLs to locate specific visual bookmarks in your Bowrd instance.
Search through your Bowrd pins by matching keywords in title, description, or source URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum results to return | |
| query | Yes | Keyword or phrase to search for |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safe read behavior, so the description's main added value is clarifying which fields are searched. It does not describe pagination behavior, result ordering, or rate limits, but the annotation covers the primary safety concern.
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, front-loaded sentence that states the core action and matching scope with no wasted words.
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 read-only search tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context to call it correctly. It could add minor details such as result ordering, but nothing essential is missing.
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. The description adds useful meaning to the query parameter by stating that keywords match title, description, or source URL; it does not further clarify the limit parameter.
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 uses a clear verb (search) and resource (Bowrd pins/entries) and specifies the keyword-matching scope across title, description, and source URL. It distinguishes itself implicitly from list_entries by focusing on keyword matching, but does not explicitly name or contrast with that sibling.
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 usage is implied: use this tool when searching for pins by keyword. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this instead of list_entries or get_entry, nor does it give exclusions or alternative-selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.