Search past conversation exchanges by keyword to retrieve relevant historical interactions.
FTS5 keyword search over all ingested exchanges.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| session_id | No | ||
| cross_session | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Input schema / properties / cross_sessionAdded value: +{
+ "default": false,
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Input schema / properties / session_idAdded value: +{
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs an FTS5 keyword search over all ingested exchanges, which is useful, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, how results are ordered or paginated, or how session_id and cross_session affect the search scope.
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 single-sentence description is concise and front-loaded with the main verb and resource. It is not bloated, but it is so terse that it omits important operational details; the structure itself provides no additional guidance.
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 four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is not complete enough for an agent to call the tool confidently. It lacks expected return format, pagination or limit behavior, session scoping semantics, and any indication of whether results are per-session or cross-session by default.
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?
The schema has no descriptions for any of the four parameters, and the description does not compensate. It only implies that 'query' is a keyword search string; limit, session_id, and cross_session are left unexplained, so an agent cannot infer their intended values beyond the bare types and defaults in the schema.
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 a specific verb ('search') and identifies the resource ('all ingested exchanges'), and it names the mechanism ('FTS5 keyword'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like stenographer_capture_status or stenographer_ingest_exchange, which have obviously different purposes.
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 use case is implied: an agent can infer this tool is for keyword searching ingested exchange data. However, the description provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no clarification on when session scoping should be applied versus cross-session search.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.