Fetch records from a specified resource within a date range and matching exact field values to retrieve baby routine data.
Read records of one resource, filtered by date range (YYYY-MM-DD) and exact fields.
Example: search_records("clothing_items", filters={"size": "S", "category": "body"}) answers "which bodies size S do I have?".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| filters | No | ||
| end_date | No | ||
| resource | Yes | ||
| start_date | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Read' which implies a non-mutating operation, but it does not mention side effects, error behavior, pagination, or that it returns a list. A simple read operation is adequately transparent at a basic level.
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 brief and includes an illustrative example, making it easy to grasp the tool's usage. It is well-structured with no redundant information.
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 the simple nature of the tool, the description covers the core purpose but lacks details on parameter semantics (e.g., limit behavior, filters object structure, date inclusivity). No output schema is needed, but parameter completeness is moderate.
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. It mentions date range and exact fields but does not explicitly map them to start_date/end_date or filters. The example shows resource and filters, but omits start_date, end_date, and limit, leaving their meaning and defaults underspecified.
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 the action ('Read records'), the object ('one resource'), and the filtering criteria ('date range (YYYY-MM-DD) and exact fields'). It is distinct from sibling tools like describe_resources (metadata) or log_record (mutation).
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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives, such as 'use this for searching records, not for describing schema'. It relies on implicit inference from the wording, lacking direct guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.