Search synced Monash Moodle/Ed course materials by keyword to retrieve matching snippets, file paths, and location details from PDFs, notes, slides, and subtitles. Use course code to narrow results.
全文搜索已同步课件/PDF/笔记/字幕；只列文件用 list_files，拿到 path 后用 read_file。返回匹配片段、文件路径和定位信息。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | 命中上限，默认15，最高50 | |
| query | Yes | 全文搜索关键词或短语 | |
| course | No | 课程号，如 FIT2102；省略=全部 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Input schema / properties / course / descriptionPrevious value: -"课程号，如 FIT2102"New value: +"课程号，如 FIT2102；省略=全部"Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionPrevious value: -"最多返回命中数"New value: +"命中上限，默认15，最高50"Input schema / properties / query / descriptionAdded value: +"全文搜索关键词或短语"v0.1.1Input schema / properties / course / descriptionAdded value: +"课程号，如 FIT2102"Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionAdded value: +"最多返回命中数"v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the rest; it discloses the return shape (matching snippets, file paths, and location info), which is valuable since no output schema exists. It stops short of pagination/limit behavior or scope limits beyond the sibling routing, so not a 5.
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?
Single dense sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose and return values, followed by sibling routing. Every clause earns its place with no waste.
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?
Covers purpose, alternative selection, and return content in one line for a read-only search tool whose annotations already carry the safety profile. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.
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 coverage is 100%, so all three params (query, limit, course) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 (全文搜索/full-text search) and precise resource scope (已同步课件/PDF/笔记/字幕), and explicitly names the sibling tools it is not (list_files, read_file). An agent can distinguish this from every sibling without opening a schema.
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?
Gives explicit when-to-use-alternative routing: use list_files to merely enumerate files, and read_file once a path is obtained. This establishes a clear workflow and names the conditions that select each alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.