Search Term records by Name (LIKE match).
Search Term 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. It discloses the LIKE-match semantics, but says nothing about read-only/non-mutating nature, result format, or rate considerations. Thin but not misleading.
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 waste that names verb, resource, and matching semantics. Nothing to trim and nothing buried.
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 search tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition is nearly complete; only the absence of read-only reassurance and pagination-behavior commentary keeps it from being fully self-contained.
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 (including the LIKE wildcard detail and pagination defaults) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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), resource (Term records), and matching scope (by Name, LIKE match), which is more precise than a bare 'search'. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from qbo_terms_list or qbo_terms_get, but the Name/LIKE framing implies a filtered lookup vs. enumerate/fetch.
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: an agent can infer this is the Name-filtered lookup among the sibling qbo_terms_* tools, but the description never states when to use it over qbo_terms_list or qbo_terms_get, nor any prerequisites. No exclusions or alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.