Search Vendor records by DisplayName (LIKE match).
Search Vendor records by DisplayName (LIKE match).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| term | Yes | Search term matched against DisplayName 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 DisplayName with LIKE '%term%'"New value: +"Search term matched against DisplayName 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. 'Search' implies a read, but the description discloses nothing about read-only status, permissions, or result shape. The LIKE/wildcard and pagination details actually live in the schema, not the description, so the description adds no behavioral context.
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. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves gaps in routing and behavioral context rather than being genuinely complete.
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 search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition should at least signal read-only safety and how it differs from the list/get siblings. The complete schema covers parameters, but the description leaves behavioral and routing questions unanswered.
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 the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly (LIKE semantics, wildcard, default/max for maxResults, 1-based startPosition). The description only echoes the DisplayName matching, adding nothing beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Vendor records'), and field ('DisplayName' with LIKE match). The scope is clear, but it does not name or distinguish itself from close siblings like qbo_vendors_list or qbo_vendors_get.
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 when-to-use guidance is given. It never states when to prefer this search over qbo_vendors_list (browse all) or qbo_vendors_get (fetch one), leaving the agent to infer the routing condition from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.