Normalize search input with a PGroonga index profile to ensure consistent full-text search and variant lookup. Provide the index name and raw text to retrieve normalized output.
Normalize text with a discovered PGroonga index profile.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| index | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes | ||
| changed | Yes | ||
| profile | Yes | ||
| normalized | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what the output looks like, or how errors are handled if the index or profile is not found. This lack of behavioral detail leaves the agent uncertain about side effects and return values.
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 a single, focused sentence without redundancy, making it concise and easy to parse. It front-loads the action and resource but omits necessary details; however, from a pure conciseness standpoint, it is well-structured. It loses one point because the brevity borders on under-specification.
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 the tool's two parameters, zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and a hidden output schema, the description is far from complete. It fails to explain the meaning of 'discovered,' the expected output shape, or how this tool fits into the broader PGroonga suite. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool based solely on the provided information.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the 'index' or 'text' parameters beyond their names. An agent cannot infer what values are valid, how they relate to the normalization process, or what 'discovered' means for the index parameter. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.
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 the primary action clearly: 'Normalize text with a discovered PGroonga index profile.' It names a specific verb and resource, and it is distinguishable from sibling tools like search or list operations. However, 'discovered' is vague and could confuse an agent about how the profile is obtained, so it doesn't fully earn the top score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'pgroonga_search' or 'pgroonga_list_normalization_profiles.' There is no mention of typical workflows, prerequisites, or exclusions, so an agent receives no help with tool selection. This is a clear gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.