search_kcsSearch Red Hat KCS solutions to retrieve a list of Solution IDs for matching knowledge articles.
Search for Red Hat KCS Solutions and return a list with Solution IDs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rows | No | Number of results to return (default: 50) | |
| query | Yes | Search query string | |
| start | No | Starting index for pagination (default: 0) | |
| session_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | 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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool searches and returns a list of Solution IDs; it does not mention pagination behavior, session usage, rate limits, or any operational caveats. The minimal disclosure is not misleading but leaves significant behavior undocumented.
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, well-structured sentence with no wasted words. The core action and result are immediately front-loaded, making it easy to parse.
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?
The description and schema are sufficient for a basic invocation, and the output schema provides return value context. However, it lacks guidance on alternatives and leaves session_id unexplained, so an agent may not fully understand edge cases or when to prefer sibling tools.
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 75% (query, rows, and start are described, session_id is not). The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already contains, and it does not compensate for the undocumented session_id parameter.
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 a specific verb ('Search'), a clear resource ('Red Hat KCS Solutions'), and a defined output ('a list with Solution IDs'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_kcs or search_cases without needing to inspect schemas.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (get_kcs, get_case, search_cases). Usage is only implied by the name and basic wording; there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.