Search Account records by Name (LIKE match).
Search Account records by Name (LIKE match).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| term | Yes | Search term matched against Name with LIKE '%term%'. '%' is a wildcard; QBO does not support an ESCAPE clause. | |
| maxResults | No | Maximum number of results to return (default: 100, max: 1000) | |
| startPosition | No | Starting position for pagination (1-based, default: 1) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.6Input schema / properties / term / descriptionPrevious value: -"Search term matched against Name with LIKE '%term%'"New value: +"Search term matched against Name with LIKE '%term%'. '%' is a wildcard; QBO does not support an ESCAPE clause."v1.4.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it adds almost nothing beyond the schema. It does not mention case sensitivity, result ordering, the 1000-row cap interaction with pagination, or that '%' wildcards cannot be escaped (all of which matter operationally). The only behavioral fact stated, LIKE matching, is already spelled out in the schema.
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?
A single short sentence with the resource and matching rule front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though arguably so terse that it leaves gaps rather than being optimally informative.
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 simple three-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It nonetheless omits routing guidance versus qbo_accounts_list/qbo_accounts_get and any note on pagination or result caps, which an agent would need to call this confidently.
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 100%, so term, maxResults, and startPosition are already fully documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description restates the term semantics without adding format or matching nuance beyond what the schema says.
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 ('Search'), resource ('Account records'), and the matching field ('by Name (LIKE match)'), which is more than a tautology. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling qbo_accounts_list or qbo_accounts_get, leaving the agent to infer that this is the name-pattern lookup path.
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?
Usage is only implied by the LIKE-match phrasing — an agent can guess this is for name-pattern lookup. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over qbo_accounts_list (full enumeration) or qbo_accounts_get (single record by id), which are the obvious alternatives among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.