Search Item records by Name (LIKE match).
Search Item 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."v1.6.2v1.6.0v1.4.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing beyond the match type. It does not describe permissions, rate limits, result shape, ordering, or how pagination behaves in practice.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words; the match semantics come before any elaboration. It is lean, though the extreme brevity borders on 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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description should shoulder more of the load for a search tool, but it never says what a match returns (full Item records? IDs? counts?) or how results are ordered. It leaves the agent guessing about the return payload.
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 documented in the schema, including the wildcard note. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 correct.
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 (Item records) plus the matching field (Name) and semantics (LIKE). It distinguishes itself implicitly from qbo_items_list by being a name-filtered search, but never names that sibling to make the distinction explicit.
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: the LIKE/Name framing tells an agent this is for partial-name lookups rather than an unfiltered listing. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and no mention of the sibling qbo_items_list as the alternative for full enumeration.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.