Find any textual reference across approved stock-audit models to trace products, lots, locations, or movements. Supports optional model filters and limits for targeted read-only auditing.
Search a textual reference across the approved stock-audit models.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| models | No | ||
| reference | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clarifies that this is a read-oriented search operation and that it is limited to 'approved stock-audit models,' which is useful context. However, it does not explain matching behavior, how the models parameter affects scope, or any other operational details.
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 one tight sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and scope. It is concise and readable, though it sacrifices richness that might have helped parameter understanding.
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?
Given no annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and three parameters including the non-obvious 'models' array, the description is too thin to fully equip an agent. The output schema may cover return shape, but usage, parameter semantics, and sibling differentiation remain incomplete.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for the parameters. It only implicitly covers 'reference' via 'textual reference' and says nothing about 'limit' or 'models,' leaving the agent without meaning beyond the raw schema names.
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 the specific verb 'Search' with the resource 'a textual reference' and the scope 'across the approved stock-audit models.' It communicates a clear search operation and distinguishes itself from entity-specific siblings like search_products or search_lots by the 'globally' scope, though 'approved stock-audit models' remains somewhat vague.
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 phrase 'across the approved stock-audit models' implies when the tool is useful, but it provides no explicit guidance about when to choose this global search over specific sibling searches, nor does it state any exclusions or preferred alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.