Search imported Tokopedia conversations by keyword with pagination and result limits. Retrieve chat records for review, follow-up, or purchase context.
Search imported conversations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| offset | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds only the scope hint "imported conversations" but says nothing about pagination behavior, result ordering, or empty-result handling, which matter for a paged search tool.
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?
The single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, which is structurally fine. However, the brevity stems from under-specification rather than genuine conciseness, so it cannot rate highly.
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 paginated search tool with three undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no usage notes, the definition is far too thin. An agent would have to guess at paging and matching semantics before calling it.
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?
All three parameters (limit, query, offset) have 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the burden — yet it never mentions limit, offset, or how the query string is matched. This leaves key parameters entirely undocumented.
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?
The description states a verb and resource ("Search imported conversations"), but the verb conflicts with the tool name "list_chats", leaving the actual operation ambiguous. It gives no differentiation from siblings like get_chat, import_records, or status.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer this over get_chat or other retrieval tools, and no note about required prerequisites such as having imported records first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.