Search your Bowrd pins by keyword across title, description, or source URL. Find specific visual bookmarks and retrieve up to 50 matching results.
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.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses which fields are matched (title, description, source URL), which is genuine behavioral context, but it never states that this is a read-only operation, how results are ordered, or anything about pagination or limits.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The search scope is stated immediately and every word earns its place.
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 two-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the essentials are covered, but the description omits result ordering, truncation/limit behavior, and any note that results are read-only. It is minimally adequate rather than complete.
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 coverage is 100%, so both the query and limit parameters are already documented in the schema, including the default and max. The description adds nothing about query syntax (exact phrase, boolean, case sensitivity) or how limit interacts with results, so the baseline 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?
States a specific verb (search) and resource (Bowrd pins/entries) and specifies the matchable fields (title, description, source URL). It is distinguishable from bowrd_list_entries by implication (keyword search vs. enumeration), though it never names that sibling explicitly.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the list_entries alternative, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The keyword-matching detail implies usage, but nothing tells the agent when search is preferable to listing or fetching a single entry.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.