search_collectionsSearch collections by name or game to get slugs for fetching collection details and comments.
Search collections by name / game. Returns slugs for get_collection and get_collection_comments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| game | No | Game domain name, e.g. "skyrimspecialedition" | |
| sort | No | endorsements | |
| count | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| offset | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds the key behavioral trait beyond that: the result set contains slug identifiers meant for downstream getters, and the search is scoped by collection name or game.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler; the primary action and scoping are front-loaded, and the return contract is stated in the second sentence.
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 non-mutating search tool, it covers the main selection and invocation needs: what to search by and what comes back. It doesn't describe behavior when query/game are omitted or detail pagination, but the schema's defaults and bounds fill most of that gap.
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?
With only 20% schema description coverage, the description helps by clarifying that 'query' means a collection name and by pairing it with game. It does not explain sort, count, or offset semantics, though their enums/defaults/bounds partially compensate.
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 and resource ('Search collections') and the two supported dimensions ('by name / game'). It also differentiates from sibling getters by saying it returns slugs for get_collection and get_collection_comments, so an agent can tell search from retrieval.
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 clear workflow context: use this as the discovery step, then pass the returned slugs into get_collection or get_collection_comments. It doesn't explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the return-contract sentence makes the intended usage obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.