bharosa-docs-mcp

Search Bharosa Code Examples

bharosa_examples_search

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search source-pinned SDK, cURL, and guide examples by literal query, language, or operation ID; returns validation scope for synthetic, typecheck, and syntax checks without claiming live integration.

Instructions

Find source-pinned SDK, cURL and guide examples by literal query, language or operation ID. Reports precise synthetic/typecheck/syntax validation scope; no live integration claim.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No
`query`	Yes	Required nonblank literal search text, even when using language or operationId filters. Use the operation ID as query to find its examples. Maximum 120 raw characters.
`language`	No
`operationId`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`total`	Yes
`notice`	Yes
`matches`	Yes
`reviewedOn`	Yes
`sdkVersion`	Yes
`availability`	Yes
`codingSha256`	Yes
`bundleVersion`	Yes
`codingVersion`	Yes
`checkpointDate`	Yes
`contractVersion`	Yes
`contractSourcePath`	Yes
`contractSourceSha256`	Yes
`publicContractSha256`	Yes
`publicContractVersion`	Yes
`approvedManifestSha256`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed8 schema fields changedv0.3.2Oct 31, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / language / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "typescript",
-  "bash",
-  "json"
-]New value: +[
+  "typescript",
+  "javascript",
+  "bash",
+  "json"
+]

addedInput schema / properties / query / description

Added value: +"Required nonblank literal search text, even when using language or operationId filters. Use the operation ID as query to find its examples. Maximum 120 raw characters."

changedOutput schema / properties / bundleVersion / const

Previous value: -"0.2.0-docs.1"New value: +"0.3.2-docs.1"

changedOutput schema / properties / codingVersion / const

Previous value: -"0.2.0-coding.1"New value: +"0.3.2-coding.1"

changedOutput schema / properties / matches / items / properties / language / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "typescript",
-  "bash",
-  "json"
-]New value: +[
+  "typescript",
+  "javascript",
+  "bash",
+  "json"
+]

changedOutput schema / properties / matches / items / properties / sdkVersion / const
```
Previous value: -"0.1.0"New value: +"0.6.0"
```

changedOutput schema / properties / matches / items / properties / validation / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "strict-typescript-and-synthetic-transport",
-  "strict-typescript",
-  "shell-syntax-only",
-  "json-parse"
-]New value: +[
+  "strict-typescript-and-synthetic-transport",
+  "strict-typescript",
+  "shell-syntax-only",
+  "javascript-syntax-only",
+  "json-parse"
+]

changedOutput schema / properties / sdkVersion / const
```
Previous value: -"0.1.0"New value: +"0.6.0"
```

First observedv0.2.0Oct 27, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful caveat beyond them — that results carry synthetic/typecheck/syntax validation scope and make no live-integration claim — which shapes how an agent should present results. It stops short of noting ordering or whether examples are deduplicated.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by the validation-scope qualification. No filler or restatement of the title.

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

Completeness4/5

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 no explanation, and the validation-scope caveat completes the honesty picture. Missing is how the four filters combine and what the default result ordering is, which an agent would want for a search tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Only 25% schema coverage, so the description must compensate; it names three of the four dimensions (literal query, language, operation ID) which maps to most parameters. However, limit is unmentioned and no enum values or interaction rules (e.g., what language does alongside operationId) are clarified, so the low-coverage gap is only partly closed.

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 (find) and resource (source-pinned SDK, cURL and guide examples) plus the filtering dimensions. It distinguishes itself from bharosa_docs_search and bharosa_api_search implicitly by naming 'examples' rather than docs or endpoints, but never names a sibling to sharpen the boundary.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: the query is described as 'literal' and the operation ID can be used as the query, so an agent can infer when to reach for it, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus bharosa_examples_read (fetch by ID) or bharosa_docs_search, and no exclusions.

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

Deploy Server