Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Search Evidence

Search Evidence

by baeseokjae
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

search_verify_live

Compares a registered reviewed build with public live HTML to detect mismatches between approved and deployed content.

Instructions

Compare a registered reviewed build with public live HTML.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "search_verify_live"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
cursorNo
cache_checkNo
manifest_idNo
verification_idNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okNo
dataNo
errorNo
warningsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a non-read-only operation touching live external content. The description does not explain what state is written, what happens on failure, or what 'registered reviewed build' implies, leaving a significant behavioral gap for a non-idempotent mutation-adjacent tool.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The single sentence is front-loaded and free of padding, but it is arguably too terse for a 5-parameter open-world verification tool. It reads more like an under-specified summary than a complete, efficient definition.

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

Completeness2/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the definition omits parameter guidance and side-effect disclosure that are important for a non-read-only, open-world tool with five optional inputs. It tells the agent what is compared but not how to call it correctly or what happens afterward.

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

Parameters1/5

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

All 5 parameters have 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about limit, cursor, cache_check, manifest_id or verification_id. With low coverage the description must compensate but provides no parameter meaning at all.

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 ('Compare') and two resources ('registered reviewed build' and 'public live HTML'), so the core operation is clear. It does not distinguish this from the sibling search_compare, leaving the agent to infer the difference.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as search_compare or search_audit_content, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. Usage is only implied by the word 'Compare'.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools