Find RPG Maker MZ actors, classes, skills, items, weapons, armors, enemies, and states by keyword in their name or description. Provide an entity type and query to locate matching project data.
Search entities by keyword across name and description fields.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search keyword | |
| entityType | Yes | Entity type to search |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but provides almost no behavioral disclosure. It says the search matches name and description fields, but does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are required, whether results are paginated or limited, or how matching works (case sensitivity, partial matches, etc.).
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 sentence with no redundancy, front-loading the core action and scope. Every word earns its place.
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 tool with two required parameters (including an enum) and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits the required entityType scoping, gives no indication of return format or result limits, and contains no usage guidance relative to sibling tools, leaving significant gaps for an agent to infer.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds that the query searches across name and description fields, which is slight extra context, but it says nothing about the required entityType parameter or any other semantics beyond what the schema already provides.
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 (entities) with the scope 'across name and description fields'. However, it fails to mention the required entityType parameter, leaving it unclear whether the search is scoped to a particular entity type, and does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_entities or get_entity.
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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_entities, get_entity, or any other search mechanism. The description only states what it does, not the context or conditions for choosing it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.