Search an air-gapped enterprise knowledge vault using hybrid dense-sparse vectors, with modes for precision, legal discovery, and exact entity matching.
Direct hybrid dense + sparse vector search across the sovereign vault.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of results to return (1 to 20) | |
| query | Yes | The search query | |
| retrieval_mode | No | high_precision |
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 the full burden. It discloses the hybrid dense + sparse retrieval approach, which is useful, but it doesn't state whether this is read-only, whether it requires special permissions, what the result format is, or any rate limits or side effects. For a search tool, the lack of return format and scope details is a gap.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the core action and method. It's concise and to the point, though it could add a bit more context without becoming bloated.
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 search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is thin. It doesn't describe what results look like, how to interpret retrieval_mode, or any constraints. The sibling tools suggest a broader system, but this description doesn't position the tool within that system.
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 67% (query and limit are described, retrieval_mode is not). The description adds the 'hybrid dense + sparse' context, which helps understand the query semantics, but it doesn't explain the retrieval_mode values or how limit behaves beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema covers most parameters.
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 states a specific verb ('search') and resource ('sovereign vault') and mentions the hybrid dense + sparse vector approach, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like sovereign_get_entity_dossier or sovereign_inspect_archive. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling or clarify what 'sovereign vault' contains, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.
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 implies this is the tool for direct vector search across the vault, and the retrieval_mode enum hints at use cases (high_precision, legal_discovery, exact_entity). But there's no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of when to prefer a sibling tool like sovereign_route_and_analyze or sovereign_scan_onboarding_radar.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.