Locate generated or planned project figures by stable ID, name, historical alias, or label like Figure 1B, then disambiguate multiple matches. It excludes public templates.
Find generated or planned project figures by stable ID, name, historical alias or Figure 1B. Multiple matches need disambiguation. Does not search public templates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world properties, so the safety profile is settled. The description adds two genuine behavioral traits beyond the annotations: results can be ambiguous ('Multiple matches need disambiguation') and the search domain excludes public templates.
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?
Three compact sentences, each earning its place: capability, ambiguity behavior, scope exclusion. The lookup keys are front-loaded so the agent gets the essential calling detail first.
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 annotation-backed read tool with no output schema, the description covers lookup semantics, ambiguity, and scope. The remaining gap is the meaning of an omitted query (list-all vs error) and roughly what a result set contains.
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 0%, so the description carries the burden and mostly does: it tells the agent the single 'query' parameter accepts a stable ID, a name, a historical alias, or a figure label. It omits the 500-character limit and does not say what an empty query returns despite the parameter being optional.
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 (Find) and resource (generated or planned project figures) and enumerates the accepted lookup keys: stable ID, name, historical alias, or figure label like 'Figure 1B'. The closing exclusion ('Does not search public templates') separates it from retrieval siblings such as template_history, though it does not name a specific alternative tool.
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?
Provides a when-not condition ('Does not search public templates') and notes that multiple matches require disambiguation, which implies a follow-up flow. However, it never names the sibling to use for templates or for disambiguating matches (e.g., search or describe), so the agent must infer routing from the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.