itmo_search_peopleSearch ITMO students and employees by name, ISU number, or other attributes to retrieve ISU numbers, contacts, and positions.
Search ITMO students and employees by name, ISU number or other attributes. Returns ISU numbers, contacts and positions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | Name, surname or ISU number | |
| offset | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the returned fields (ISU numbers, contacts, positions) but says nothing about pagination behavior despite limit/offset parameters, nor about result caps or empty-result handling.
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the search capability and followed by return fields. No filler; slightly more room existed to fold in pagination guidance without bloat.
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?
With no output schema, the description steps up by naming what comes back (ISU numbers, contacts, positions), which is genuinely needed. The remaining gap is pagination and result-limit semantics, which is meaningful but not fatal for a read-only search tool.
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 only 33%: the query parameter is documented, but limit and offset have no description anywhere. The description partially compensates by naming searchable attributes ('name, ISU number or other attributes'), but it never explains pagination, defaults, or the 50-item ceiling.
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+resource ('Search ITMO students and employees') and enumerates queryable attributes plus returned fields. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling get-style tools like itmo_get_person, though it never names that sibling explicitly to sharpen the contrast.
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?
Usage is implied by the verb 'search' versus the 'get_*' siblings that retrieve a single known entity, but the description never states when to use this over itmo_get_person or what to do when a query is ambiguous. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.