Search Class records by Name (LIKE match).
Search Class 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 disclosure burden. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, how results are ordered, or how pagination behaves, and the LIKE/case-sensitivity semantics are only partially implied.
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 tight sentence with no filler, and the essential search scope is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than pure efficiency.
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 3-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it omits read-only confirmation, result-ordering behavior, and routing guidance against the neighboring list/get tools. The schema covers the mechanics, but the description leaves behavioral and usage gaps.
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 all three parameters (term, maxResults, startPosition) are already documented in the schema, including the LIKE wildcard and no-ESCAPE caveat. The description merely echoes the Name LIKE matching without adding anything new, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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) and resource (Class records) plus the matching field (Name with LIKE semantics). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling qbo_classes_list or qbo_classes_get, so an agent must infer that this is the filtered variant.
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?
No guidance on when to use this search versus qbo_classes_list (unfiltered listing) or qbo_classes_get. The LIKE-matching note implies a use case but never states an exclusion or alternative path.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.