Search BMSTU departments and subdivisions by query. Returns matching academic and administrative units, with an optional limit to control result count.
Find BMSTU departments and subdivisions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the entire burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't mention that the tool is read-only, returns a list, or any side effects. For a search tool, this is a notable gap.
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 description is extremely short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks essential context and does not earn its placement, almost resembling the 'Process' tautology example.
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?
Given no output schema, the description should imply what the tool returns or how parameters work. It provides neither, leaving the tool functionally opaque even though it has only two parameters.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It does not explain what 'query' represents (e.g., free-text search) or what 'limit' controls (e.g., max results), leaving agents to guess.
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 clearly states a specific action (find) and a specific resource (BMSTU departments and subdivisions). It distinguishes from search_teachers by the resource type, but does not differentiate among department-related tools like get_department_analytics or compare_departments, so it's not a full 5.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_teachers or get_department_analytics. The description simply states the action without any contextual cues for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.