Coador

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

kb_search

Read-only

Search a local Android repository knowledge base using plain language or identifiers to retrieve architecture, Gradle, tests, UI selectors, CI/CD, and other project context with evidence.

Instructions

Search the knowledge base in plain language or by identifier (for example 'how are UI tests run', 'Hilt', 'testInstrumentationRunner').

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "kb_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`query`	Yes
`layer_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 17, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds essentially nothing behavioral beyond that — no mention of ranking, result limits, or how the limit parameter affects behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the inline examples earn their space by showing the agent exactly what query strings are valid.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

A read-only search tool with an output schema and safety annotations needs little more, but the undocumented layer_id scoping and limit default are real gaps for a tool where narrowing results matters. Return values correctly need not be described since an output schema exists.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only partially does. It meaningfully clarifies the required 'query' parameter with NL and identifier examples, but 'limit' and especially 'layer_id' scoping are left completely undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search the knowledge base') and clarifies the two accepted query modes with concrete examples ('how are UI tests run', 'Hilt', 'testInstrumentationRunner'). It reads clearly against retrieval siblings like kb_get_section, though it does not explicitly name when to prefer it over kb_overview or kb_get_section.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus kb_overview, kb_get_section, or kb_list_layers. Nothing tells the agent which situations call for a search versus a direct section fetch, leaving the routing decision entirely to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server